Preamble

The House met at half-past
Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KENT RIVER BOARD (HAROUR OF RYE) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

PETITION

Traffic Proposals, Highgate

Lady Gammans: I beg to present a Petition from the inhabitants of Highgate and the surrounding area in which they state that the proposal of the Minister of Transport for a one-way lorry route up Highgate Hill would gravely disrupt and disorganise ways of life in the district, and would, in fact, defeat the avowed intention and object of my right hon. Friend, which is to speed the progress of lorries from the docks to the North, owing to the inevitable congestion on the hill due to breakdowns.
About one hundred years ago, the Archway Road was cut to relieve the burden of heavy traffic on Highgate Hill, which, owing to its steep gradient, was unsuitable for it. There is a true story of a tram Which ran away from the top of the hill to the bottom, and one dreads to think what may happen if one of these heavy articulated lorries were to do the same thing. What was true one hundred years ago is surely more true today, with all the types of heavy lorries which are involved.
By diverting traffic to Archway Road, not only has Highgate been developed, as an exceptionally attractive place, with many beautiful and indeed historic buildings in it, but it has also drawn to itself, because of its unique character, many large hospitals and schools for both girls and boys, besides an unusually large number of old people's homes.

Casualties to old people and school children will thus be gravely affected if Highgate Hill were used for this one-way lorry traffic.
The Petition ends with the Prayer:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will ensure that the scheme be abandoned, and that a permanent solution of the problem, namely, the widening of Archway Road, supported by Hornsey Borough Council and other authorities, be proceeded with forthwith.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Bus Stop, Albert Hall

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Albert Hall bus stop for buses travelling towards Piccadilly is sited so near the Albert Hall gate to Hyde Park as to make it difficult for bus drivers to keep to the proper lane to allow cars to take advantage of the filter into Hyde Park; and what action he is taking in the matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): The position of this stop will be reviewed very soon. I will let my hon. Friend know the result.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that even where the opportunity does arise, there is a remarkable disinclination on the part of bus drivers to get into the right lane of traffic? Will he draw the attention of the Chairman of the London Transport Executive to this problem, in which he can help bus drivers and the ordinary motorist?

Mr. Hay: I would not accept as an invariable rule what my hon. Friend says, but I have no doubt that the exchange of view on this subject which he has initiated will be brought to the attention of the Chairman of the London Transport Executive.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that until the


beginning of the war, I think, the Albert Gate used to be open, so that it was a filter enabling people to go into the Park? Would he consider the possible reopening of this Gate in order to facilitate this traffic, because it is difficult, even for bus drivers?

Mr. Hay: The whole of the arrangements for traffic in this area are under review in connection with a possible one-way experiment, as my hon. Friend knows. We may have looked at it, but I will see that it is examined again.

Traffic Engineering

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport how many officials of his Department are now fully engaged on traffic engineering in the interests of road safety.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): There are 54 engineering staff in my Department wholly engaged on traffic engineering. Traffic engineering deals with traffic flow, road safety and many other allied problems but these 54 traffic engineers keep road safety principles well to the forefront when preparing or examining schemes.

Mr. Jeger: Are these 54 officials available to give advice to local authorities? Many of the smaller towns are trying to grapple, but unsuccessfully, with traffic problems which come in from outside, and which the authorities are not big enough to deal with on their own.

Mr. Marples: Certainly if I in the central Government can help any local authority with any of its problems I shall be delighted to do so. I am bound to say that the one classic example of traffic engineering is Tottenham Court Road and Gower Street where, once we had one-way traffic, the traffic went twice as fast and the casualties among pedestrians were reduced by 30 per cent. If any local authority would wish advice and guidance I should be really grateful if it would get in touch with me.

Mr. Jeger: Could I then advise my own Goole local authority to get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman in order to get traffic engineers sent up there to deal with the railway crossing across the main road?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman could certainly advise Goole local authority, but what Goole local authority would do with the advice is another matter.

Underground Garage, Regent's Park

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the provision of an underground garage in Regent's Park, in view of the shortage of garage accommodation in St. Marylebone.

Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend is still studying, in consultation with the Minister of Works, the problems of traffic and amenity which would be involved. We are asking the St. Marylebone Borough Council how far it would be prepared to participate in a project for a garage under Regent's Park if these problems can be satisfactorily solved. We should not in any case decide about such a project until we have seen how the Hyde Park garage turns out.

Sir W. Wakefield: Would the Minister bear in mind that there is a grave shortage of garage accommodation in St. Marylebone and that it is very difficult indeed for the borough council to find any places for off-street parking facilities? Is he further aware that Regent's Park is ideal for this purpose, and will he make a great effort to expedite discussions on this problem?

Mr. Hay: We are certainly not lagging in this matter. As I said in my Answer, we are asking St. Marylebone Borough Council whether it will be prepared to take part in a project of this kind, and I think that we had better wait and see what answer the council gives us.

Oxford Street

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Transport if he has now concluded his study of the various suggestions made to him in connection with the reduction of congestion in Oxford Street and the possible introduction of one-way traffic in Oxford Street and neighbouring streets; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: This is an intricate problem and I have not yet reached a conclusion on it. As soon as I have, I shall make a statement.

Sir W. Wakefield: Could the Minister say whether he has received the views of Westminster City Council and of St. Marylebone Borough Council? Can he give any idea when he is likely to be in a position to make a statement, because he will realise that the present uncertainty is causing grave disquiet in that part of West London?

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. I have received the ideas of the Westminster City Council, the London Transport Executive, the Oxford Street Association, the Westminster Chamber of Commerce, the Grosvenor Estates, the Howard de Walden Estate, the Brook Street Residents Committee, the St. Marylebone Works Committee and many others as well. As they have given the most comprehensive thought to the matter, it would only be courteous and right for me to give the closest scrutiny to what they propose. Therefore, I am not in a position to say at what time I shall be able to answer the many constructive proposals which have been put to me.

Channel Crossing Proposals

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport when Her Majesty's Government will make a decision on the subject of the Channel tunnel or bridge in view of the possibility of the Common Market negotiations being concluded shortly.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet come to a decision as to the desirabilty and feasibility of some form of terrestrial link between the United Kingdom and France.

Mr. Marples: The Anglo-French official study of the Channel crossing proposals is making progress; but there are complex problems which must be thoroughly worked out before Governments can reach decisions. I make no promises at this stage about the timing of such decisions.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement on this matter before we rise for the Summer Recess? The discussions have been going on for more than a year, and the matter must be brought to a head, particularly if we are to enter the Common Market.

Mr. Marples: I am sorry but I think that the real point here is that we must make the right decision and not a speedy decision. There are many complex problems involved in the study, We suggested to the French Government in December, 1960, that we should hold joint discussions on the Channel tunnel proposals. Unfortunately, for many reasons it was not possible to start the discussions until November, 1961. I believe that the House would like a comprehensive study and a conclusion reached after careful consideration rather than a hurried answer which was not the right one.

Mr. Mallalieu: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the intense interest that there is in this imaginative project, and will he state that no unreasonable delay will be allowed by himself and his Ministry?

Mr. Marples: There will be no unreasonable delay on this side of the Channel.

Mr. Mellish: Can we get it on the record that at any rate the Government favour the principle of having a Channel tunnel and that the whole purpose of the discussions is to work out how best this can be achieved? Is that a clear statement of the position or not?

Mr. Marples: I am not going to be drawn into anything at this stage, even by so astute a cross-examiner as the hon. Gentleman. I believe it is better for me to be completely impartial until both French and British Governments have made up their minds and announced their decision. That will be at the earliest possible moment consistent with making a reasonable decision.

A.22 Road, South Godstone

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee its recommendations concerning the proposed alteration of the speed limits on the A.22 at South Godstone.

Mr. Hay: We have received and we accept the Committee's recommendation that this road should be subject to a 40 m. p. h. speed limit.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, as a matter of common sense as well as courtesy, this decision should not have been reached without my hon. Friend or the Minister or the Traffic Advisory Committee meeting and discussing the recommendation with the local residents, among whom feeling on this subject is very intense?

Mr. Hay: I wrote to my right hon. Friend about this matter on 3rd July. Perhaps he will study my answer, from which I think it is clear that no discourtesy was intended. The members of the Traffic Advisory Committee were very fully aware of the situation at that place and many of them knew it from personal experience.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: My hon. Friend states that the members of the Traffic Advisory Committee knew this area and this problem. Can he say whether they have visited it in their capacity as road hogs on their way to the South Coast or as unhappy pedestrians trying to cross the road?

Mr. Hay: I do not think either of those assertions is justified.

Omnibus Station, Cradley Heath

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Minister of Transport why he has refused to approve the provision of an omnibus station at Lower High Street, Cradley Heath, Staffordshire.

Mr. Marples: After examining the local council's proposal, I came to the conclusion that I would not be justified, on grounds of urgent necessity, in recommending sanction for a loan of £ 14,000 for this purpose at the present time.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not the case that this proposal for an omnibus station was approved in principle by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government three years ago, and that the Rowley Regis Borough Council has incurred expenditure of £ 7,000 for land acquisition and preliminary work? Is it not most unfair that a local authority should be the victim of different decisions by different Departments in this way? Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to indicate that he will give this very sympathetic consideration as soon as possible?

Mr. Marples: In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I will look at this matter again. When it was looked into carefully, the scheme was considered desirable but neither essential nor urgent. But I will look at it again in the light of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Road Development, South-West

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Transport what reply he has given to the representations sent to him by the Federation of British Industries regarding road development in the south-west of England.

Mr. Marples: The Federation of British Industries has not made any such representations to me.

Mr. Hayman: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to prepare to receive such a recommendation, which was discussed with the Federation and with 18 hon. Members last Thursday, when there was general agreement that the Minister's priorities for road development shows that he regards the South-West as a "Cinderella" of the industrial life of the nation? Will he revise his priorities?

Mr. Marples: That is a very difficult question to answer. I think that it is desirable for regional offices of the F.B.I. to send their complaints to the headquarters of the Federation, which can then make complaints or suggestions on a national scale rather than on a regional scale— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why"?]— because if the south-west region starts making representations it will not be long before the north-east region does the same.

Standard Road and Gorst Road Acton

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet considered the representations made to him on 26th March, 1962, by the hon. Member for Acton about the possibility of introducing one-way working in Standard Road and Gorst Road, Acton.

Mr. Hay: We have reached no conclusions yet. We have consulted the police and the highway authority. We


are arranging a site meeting to discuss my hon. Friend's suggestion and other traffic problems on the Chase Road Estate. All interested parties will be invited to attend.

Mr. Holland: Does my hon. Friend realise that although his consideration of this problem so far appears to have taken a fairish amount of time, his reply will be regarded by Acton Chamber of Commerce and my constituents working in this congested area as encouraging? Will he press on with the matter and give full satisfaction to all by reaching the right decision as soon as possible?

Mr. Hay: We will certainly press on but whether we can give everyone complete satisfaction is not quite so certain.

Motorways (Construction Costs)

Mr. Wade: asked the Minister of Transport by what amount in costs per mile the estimated cost of constructing new motorways has risen between January, 1959, and the latest available date in 1962.

Mr. Hay: The cost of constructing motorways varies widely according to the particular circumstances of each route, including soil conditions and the extent to which major structures are necessary. Average costs may, therefore, be misleading but some indication of the increase in costs is given by the following figures. The average cost of M.1, including land, was approximately £ 407,000 per mile. The estimated average cost per mile, including land, of the M.6 motorway from Dunston to Preston by-pass is approximately £ 699,000. This figure reflects the cost of three major viaducts, of poor soil conditions and improved design standards. It also reflects the general rise in tender rates since 1959.

Mr. Wade: But to what does the hon. Gentleman attribute these very substantial increases in the cost of making these motorways? Would he agree that one of the reasons is the uneconomic use of specialised equipment due to the lack of any steady continuous programme of construction that would ensure full and uninterrupted use of this plant?

Mr. Hay: No, Sir. I tried in my answer to give some of the factors which relate to this increase in costs. This old idea that it is uneconomic not to build a motorway except all in one piece and all at one time because otherwise plant stands idle has been exploded on a number of occasions. It just is not so.

Mr. J. Wells: Will my hon. Friend give some figures for the Maidstone bypass, including the cost per mile, since that by-pass appears to have been partly worn out in a very short time? Were we in Kent unfortunate enough to have a cheap job done?

Mr. Hay: I know that my hon. Friend makes use of that road frequently but I did not know that his use of it was so intensive as to wear it out. I cannot give details relating to the Maidstone by-pass without notice.

A.25 Road (Improvement)

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Transport how many miles of the A.25 road have been improved in the past 10 years; haw many separate schemes this represents; how many miles are being improved at present, in haw many schemes; how many schemes are planned for the next five years, or other convenient period ahead; and what is the total cost of these schemes, past, present and future.

Mr. Hay: Some two and one half miles of the A.25 road have been improved in five different major schemes, all since 1958. One major scheme is in hand covering a quarter of a mile of the road. Nine major schemes covering seven miles are programmed for the next two or three years. The total costs of completed, present and planned schemes are £ 172,000, £ 32,000 and £ 918,000.

Mr. J. Wells: I am grateful for that Answer, but is my hon. Friend aware that very nearly seven and a half miles of the A.25 road still has double white lines? This road is the main trunk road from Kent to the west of England, avoiding London. If he could expedite work on the seven miles now to be put in


hand, it would be extremely advantageous for members of the public living in Kent who have business commitments and wish to avoid London.

Mr. Hay: We shall get on as quickly as we can. Our intention is to bring this road to the standard of a good three-lane road.

Amersham Road, S.E.14

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to improve the street lighting in Amersham Road, S.E.14, now that it has been incorporated as a one-way street in the A.20 route to Kent; and if the lighting will be brought up to the normal trunk route standards for urban areas.

Mr. Hay: This is entirely a matter for the Deptford Borough Council.

Mr. Wells: Does not my right hon. Friend have responsibility for trunk routes?

Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend has power to provide or contribute towards street lighting, but only on trunk roads. The A.20 ceases to be a trunk road at the point where it enters the L.C.C. area, near the western end of the Sidcup bypass.

Mr. Wells: Could not my hon. Friend make representations to Deptford Borough Council to bring its street lighting up to adequate safety standards?

Mr. Hay: I do not think that it is for my right hon. Friend to do that.

Expenditure, County of Durham

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Transport what sums are to be expended on the reconstruction and improvement of roads in the County of Durham contained in the road programme.

Mr. Marples: The estimated total expenditure on trunk road improvements costing over £ 100,000 each, in the geographical County of Durham— excluding the Tyneside conurbation area— is £ 6,840,000 in the next four to five years. This includes £ 5½ million for the Darlington by-pass motorway. The figure for classified roads in the years 1961-62 to 1964-65 inclusive is £ 1,567,000.
In addition, I expect that smaller schemes, costing in all approximately £ 248,000 on trunk roads and £ 640,000 on classified roads, will be authorised in the corresponding periods.
My future plans include the 20-mile Durham motorway, the cost of which will be very substantial.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the transport needs of this area, more particularly because of the closure of branch railway lines and the indication by Dr. Beeching of the possibility of further closures, is not this a comparatively small amount? In view of the time which will elapse before this programme is implemented, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of increasing the amount available?

Mr. Marples: It is not a comparatively small but a substantial amount. There are other hon. Members. on both sides of the House, who think that their areas are receiving less than that which the right hon. Gentleman has the honour to represent. In particular, his hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Mr. Hayman) thinks that the North-East is getting more at the expense of the South-West. It is my difficult job to hold the balance among all these competing interests.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman take into account the population of the North-East as compared with the South-West? While no one desires to prevent the South-West from getting all that it is entitled to, surely the industrial needs of the North-East require greater priority.

Mr. Marples: I take into account not only the quantity of the population but the quality of the population and the varying desires and industrial needs in all parts of the country.

New Highway, Louth

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the opposition in Louth to the suggested wide highway through the town, if he will consult the local planning authority with a view to its producing its own scheme for immediate consideration as an alternative project; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hay: Our engineers have already had consultations with the county planning officer, who is at present preparing a draft town map for submission to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The planning of the future road system in Louth must be considered as a whole. Until we know the views of the Lindsey County Council we cannot decide what to do about the improvement of the trunk road.

Sir C. Osborne: Will my hon. Friend do his utmost to expedite these consultations, which have been going on for about three years? Secondly, is he aware that nobody locally wants this main highway through this ancient borough and that the local trustee savings bank— which, 'incidentally, is about the oldest in the country— cannot modernise its property because this trunk road, which nobody wants, will go right through its premises? Will he not say that this stupid scheme will be abandoned?

Mr. Hay: We will certainly do all that we can to expedite the consideration of this matter, but I think that we should have these further consulations before we make a decision.

Mr. Snow: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed from the contributions made this afternoon by his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) that consultation between his Ministry and the county planning authority is not always enough, and that the viewpoint of the local authority has been somewhat neglected in many cases, one of which I hope to bring to his attention this afternoon?

Mr. Hay: When we get to the Question of the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), I will answer it, and I think that he will then feel satisfied that we have adequately consulted.

Sir C. Osborne: It is not a question of consultation not being enough, but of its not always being quick enough. Will my hon. Friend get something done quickly?

New School, Monkseaton (Access)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make arrangements for a senior official of his department to accompany the hon. Member for Tynemouth to examine the dangerous access, for pupils, to the new Monkseaton Grammar and Technical School.

Mr. Hay: No, Sir. The responsibility for providing safe access to this new school is a matter for the local authorities and not for my right hon. Friend.

Dame Irene Ward: As the school was built at the request of the Ministry of Education, and as Northumberland County Council says that the Minister of Transport is not giving it sufficient money to provide a safe access, will my hon. Friend explain to me whether the lives of children are more important in his opinion? Does he mind whether children have safe access to the school? Why will he not allow someone to come with my experts to look at the whole site? It is absolutely disgraceful that the lives of children should be endangered in this way, and I am ashamed to hear such an Answer from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hay: Of course, we are all anxious to see that the lives of school children are not endangered.

Dame Irene Ward: Then send up somebody to look at it instead of being so fatuously obstinate.

Mr. Hay: We are anxious to see that the lives of school children are not endangered.

Dame Irene Ward: They are endangered.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The hon. Lady has been here so long that she must know that there are limits to permitted misbehaviour.

Mr. Hay: If I may conclude; if my right hon. Friend has no responsibility, I do not quite see how my hon. Friend can force the responsibility upon him.

Dame Irene Ward: Money, money, money.

Parking Meter Scheme, Newcastle (Public Inquiry)

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Transport why he did not inform the Newcastle Corporation of his intention to hold a public inquiry into its parking meter scheme before informing an hon. Member whose constituency is not directly affected by the scheme; and why he did not, at the same time, inform the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central after promising to do so in a letter dated 21st May.

Mr. Marples: This was a mistake, for which I apologise.

Mr. Short: Of course we accept the Minister's apology, but his action appeared to be extremely discourteous. Will he see that in future when he tells the hon. Member concerned— and I was the Member concerned— that he will inform him, he does not inform an hon. Member opposite ten days before? Will he also see that in future when a public inquiry is to be held, he does not leave the local authority to read about it in the local Press?

Mr. Marples: I have apologised. I am sure that the House will agree that in my Ministry we have thousands of oases and that occasionally one or two go wrong. I accept responsibility, I have said so, and I am sorry.

London-Yorkshire Motorway

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Transport why the Leicestershire portion of the London to Yorkshire motorway is to be built in two separate operations since it would be cheaper to finish the job at once when both men and machines have been assembled; what will be the estimated cost; if it will be on a cost-plus basis; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hay: Although the extension of M.1 is not one of the five major projects, we are proceeding as quickly as preparation and funds allow. By undertaking the work in stages, we can start earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Each stage will give progressive benefits.
Competitive tenders are now being invited for the first 26 miles. I would not wish to prejudice the outcome by quot

ing my own estimates of cost at this stage. It will not be on a cost-plus basis.

Sir C. Osborne: Is it not true that the contractors on the first part of the M.1 stated that in their experience it would be better and cheaper to finish the job in one piece rather than in small parts? Is there any reason not to believe their opinion on that matter?

Mr. Hay: No, Sir. The main length of the first section of the M.1, covering 55 miles, was divided into four contracts. As it happened, one firm was the successful tenderer for all four contracts. But it does not necessarily follow that there has to be one contract to get the maximum speed and the maximum efficiency.

Sir C. Osborne: But when that operation was finished, if I remember rightly, the contractors said that from their experience it would be cheaper to use the men and the machinery then assembled to go on with the job. Is there any reason to disbelieve that estimate?

Mr. Hay: I have no recollection of the contractors saying anything of the kind.

A.51 Road, Rugeley

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the concern felt by the Rugeley Urban District Council regarding his decision to use the A.51 as the principal egress from Rugeley; and whether he will reconsider this decision in view of the Council's opinion that the Staffordshire County Roads and Bridges Committee's recommendation in 1958 is now erroneous, especially in view of the congestion caused on the road at the point of the railway viaduct in Rugeley.

Mr. Hay: Rugeley Urban District Council, with the hon. Member's support, has pressed us both to bring forward the improvement of A.51 in our programme and to include the widening of the alternative route, A.513, with a new link road to A.51. We hope to be able to bring forward the work on A.51 but for reasons which have been fully explained to the Council we cannot include the alternative road in our present programme.

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has a long history, and that the financial repercussions of the improvement of the A.51 did not come to the attention of the local authority until rather late in the day, when it became apparent that the proposal to use the A.51 as a main egress was going to be very serious indeed financially? Will the hon. Gentleman consider either sending one of these traffic engineers, or worrying these people to examine the position from an economic point of view in the light of the new circumstances?

Mr. Hay: I will consider that. We are, and have been, in very close touch with the U.D.C. about this matter over a long time, but I will see whether we can do anything further to clear up this point.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Tyneside

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Transport what is the number of ships being built on Tyneside at present; whether this number is less or more than the number two years ago; whether the value of the ships now being built is greater than that of those being built two years ago; and what is his present estimate of the commercial prospects for the shipping industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): At 30th June there were 23 merchant ships totalling 229,700 gross tons and three naval vessels under construction on the Tyne. At the end of 1959 the comparable figures were 29 merchant ships totalling 343,600 gross tons and four naval vessels. I have no information about the value of these ships.
I should not like to predict when the present difficult conditions in shipping will improve.

Mr. McKay: Is it true that we, the British, are buying ships from foreign ports, and that in this process British buyers are subsidised to the extent of the investment allowance? How many ships have been bought in this way? Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that this is subsidising competition with our own people?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I could not without notice give exact figures of orders placed abroad, but I am glad to say that, while a year ago we were deeply concerned at the number of orders which were going abroad, the number this year has fallen to a mere trickle.

Policy

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on Great Britain's future shipbuilding policy, following the Cunard Steamship Company's recent merger.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The policy of the Government towards the shipbuilding industry is not affected by the link between Cunard and B.O.A.C.

Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman still accept Cunard as a reliable instrument for carrying out the policy which was embodied in the Bill that became an Act a year ago? Is he aware that in stating Cunard's attitude to the building of the replacement for the "Queen Mary", Sir John Brocklebank, last Wednesday, stated that it would be foolish at this juncture to embark on the building of a capital ship. If he regards the Government's policy as foolish, how can the Government expect him to carry it out?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I can only say that we have kept in close touch with the Cunard Company during these months, and, so far as I am aware, there is no direct connection in the mind of the company between this link with B.O.A.C. and the decision about a new liner. After all, the company's decision to buy aeroplanes, which was the principal investment that it had in the new link, had been made before we were discussing the Bill last year.

Mr. Rankin: Of course there is a connection. It was my way of bringing it up. Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the position of Cunard is now somewhat unstable in the estimation of a great many people, and that that was the reason for the merger? In view of that, does he consider Cunard to be a reliable instrument for giving effect to Government policy?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I de not propose to comment on the Cunard Company's reliability. I would point


out that, although there is an obvious connection between the development of air travel, on the one hand, and the wisdom of investing a lot of money in a new passenger liner, on the other, I do not consider there is any main connection between this particular agreement and the case of a possible Q.3.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Pedestrian and Vehicle Traffic (Segregation)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to increase the segregation of pedestrian and, vehicle traffic.

Mr. Marples: It is in the towns and cities that this problem is most acute and I foresee an increasing need for the separation of pedestrians and vehicles. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and I myself are giving advice to this effect on specific redevelopment schemes throughout the country and we are about to issue a bulletin on the redevelopment of town centres which will emphasise this point. We expect to give further advice when the group studying the long-term problems of urban traffic has made its report.

Mr. Jeger: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability or otherwise of issuing standard patterns of advice about busy crossings in order to ensure that traffic is kept flowing on the roads and pedestrians kept safely on the pavements?

Mr. Marples: We have an advisory committee which we call the Long-Term Study Group on this particular point, with a steering group, whose chairman is Sir Geoffrey Crowther. I think that certainly within the next twelve months we shall be issuing to local authorities comprehensive advice on this problem, which I think strikes at the very root of the problem of how to cope and live with the motor car.

Second-Hand Cars (Roadworthiness)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a Birmingham firm, about which he has received details, is selling secondhand cars in an unroadworthy condition; and, in

view of general anxiety on this matter, whether, under Section 248 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, he will hold an inquiry to establish the extent to which this and other firms are avoiding the operation of Section 68 of that Act.

Mr. Hay: We have no evidence which suggests that there is any widespread contravention of Section 68 of the Road Traffic Act. My right hon. Friend is writing to the hon. Member about the particular case of which he sent details.
Enforcement of the law is of course a matter for the police.

Mr. Chapman: Does this mean that the Ministry can do nothing in this case? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the dozen or so individual cases I sent to him, and the pressure on his Ministry from the motoring organisations about this firm trading as Unity Motors of Birmingham? Has he considered the identity of complaint in every case, namely, that cars are being sold that are defective in such things as brakes and gear boxes, and that these may be dangerous on the roads, and that most questionable sales methods are being used to get these unroadworthy cars sold — such methods as hire-purchase forms signed in blank, and registration books with the date of manufacture concealed for a time, and so on? Should not something be done to protect purchasers in cases like this?

Mr. Hay: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better await my right hon. Friend's letter, which goes into this matter in some detail.

Mr. Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that many unroadworthy vehicles are on the roads as a result of insurance companies writing off vehicles as a total loss and then the vehicles being purchased by irresponsible motor agents? Could he possibly make an arrangement with insurance companies whereby, before the cars are reregistered, they have to pass a Ministry of Transport examination?

Mr. Hay: We have had this matter under discussion in Standing Committee in connection with the Road Traffic Bill. We take the view that a better way to deal with this kind of case is to bring down the age limit for vehicle tests as


quickly as we possibly can. This catches far more cases than any ad hoc arrangement would do.

Mr. Mellish: Having seen the correspondence between my hon. Friend and the Ministry, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman does not agree that in fact the complaint is both justified and fairly widespread? May we have an assurance that the Government will strengthen the law in the matter?

Mr. Hay: I do not think we ought to start arguing from an individual case to a general change in the law. With regard to individual cases, the present law, we are satisfied, is adequate to deal with the situation. What is important is to get concrete evidence of breaches of the law, and that is a matter for the police.

Parking Meters, London (Receipts)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport how much has been collected from parking meters in the London area during 1962; and what use has been made of the moneys so collected.

Mr. Hay: The administration of parking meter schemes, including the collection of meter charges, is the responsibility of the local authorities concerned. I understand that the gross receipts in London during 1962, up to 31st May, were about £ 257,000; after deducting expenses the net receipts will be about £ 86,000.
The surplus revenue must by law be applied to the provision and maintenance of parking accommodation off the highway. Some has already been appropriated for this purpose. The balance is held pending the acquisition of suitable sites.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my hon. Friend, either today or on a suitable occasion, give instances of suitable off-road parking sites which are being developed by means of this money, because a great many motorists have the opinion that millions of shillings and sixpences are going down the drain and that absolutely nothing is happening?

Mr. Hay: I am very glad to refute that erroneous suggestion or impression. The fact is that local authorities in

London have already a number of plans either in an advanced stage of preparation or actually going ahead for off-street car parks. For instance, there is a multi-storey garage in Audley Square which will be open this year. Another in Lower Thames Street is well advanced. Others are to be provided in Savile Row, Whitcomb Street, and Saffron Hill, Holborn. In addition, the House will remember that we have made it possible for a big garage to be built under Hyde Park, which should be in operation by the end of the year. That is where the money is going.

Mr. Lipton: What is the reason for the enormous discrepancy between the gross takings of parking meters and the comparatively negligible net sum which results from the total operation?

Mr. Hay: If the hon. Gentleman had had a little more experience in business he would know how expenses are rather liable to reduce gross takings.

Road and Rail Accidents

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Transport what were the estimated financial losses caused by accidents arising from travel by train and road, respectively, within the United Kingdom during 1961.

Mr. Marples: In a study of the cost of road accidents in 1952, the Road Research Laboratory estimated the loss to the community as a result of road accidents at £ 72 million. Allowing for the increase in the number of accidents and changes in the value of money since 1952, the cost of road accidents is currently estimated at about £ 160 million. No such estimate of the financial loss arising from train accidents is available.

Mr. Boyden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman have in his Department any research workers who are studying how railways can relieve the danger and cost of accidents on the roads?

Mr. Marples: We have a number of studies on the subject of the railways going on, most of which are concerned with how much traffic which is suitable can be induced to come back to the railways. The question of road safety certainly comes into this, but we


have no specific part of my Department looking into the question of how accidents could be reduced in this way.

Mr. Boyden: Surely this is one of the fundamental weaknesses in the whole situation? If Dr. Beeching can study the possibilities of the railways, surely the Ministry of Transport has an obligation to study whether roads and railways can be integrated from the points of view of safety and economy?

Mr. Marples: That is just what I have said.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that the annual loss from railway accidents is far less than the £ 160 million which the Minister estimates for road accidents? Is not the estimate of £ 160 million very modest indeed, and have not others made a much larger estimate? Is not this a factor which the Minister ought to take into account while he is forcing traffic on to the roads and destroying the railways?

Mr. Marples: I really must object to the right hon. Gentleman's saying that I am forcing traffic on to the roads. Traffic is going on to the roads because the people of this country wish to go on to the roads. I am not forcing it on to the roads. [Interruption.]

Mr. Manuel: The right hon. Gentleman is. [Interruption.]

Mr. Marples: The very democrats who voted for the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a daily struggle to get through a reasonable number of Questions. If the noise of answer and question is drowned by counter-assertions shouted, we make even less progress.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Transport how many people were injured and admitted to hospital as a result of train and road accidents, respectively, within the United Kingdom during 1961.

Mr. Marples: The number of people admitted to hospital as a result of road and train accidents is not available. The number of people seriously injured in road accidents in Great Britain, whether or nor, admitted to hospital, was 84,936; 55,844 of these were drivers or

passengers in motor vehicles. The number of persons seriously injured in train accidents in Great Britain during 1961 was 111, of whom 51 were passengers.

Mr. Boyden: While I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern about road safety purely with regard to the roads, is not his whole attitude to coordination of rail and road from the point of view of reducing road accidents thoroughly flippant?

Mr. Marples: No, Sir.

Mr. Mellish: But will the right hon. Gentleman please at any rate take it from us that his argument about profit on the railways must surely be measured against the safety of the railways? If one is to strike a balance sheet, is it not fair in the interests of the community that we should say that train travel is that much safer and that we should encourage people to go by train, rather than close down branch lines, as the right hon. Gentleman intends to do?

Mr. Marples: The choice is for the people themselves.

Road Accidents (Doctors' Fee)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the fee for doctors attending road accidents has remained at 12s. 6d. since 1934; and whether, in view of the complications and delays which may be involved in the medical treatment of persons meeting with road accidents, he will take steps to arrange for this fee to be increased at an early date.

Mr. Hay: I am aware that the fee of 12s. 6d. has not been changed since it was introduced in 1934. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that an Amendment to abolish this charge altogether was discussed yesterday during the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill. The hon. Member will find that the Government's view was then expressed as being that the charge should be abolished when financial circumstances permit.

Sir B. Janner: What on earth is the Parliamentary Secretary thinking about? Does he realise that the fee is dismally small and that it takes a doctor several


hours to earn it? Is it not about time that it was increased instead of abolished altogether?

Mr. Hay: I advise the hon. Gentleman to study the proceedings in the Standing Committee yesterday, or to have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) who was there. This fee was fixed as long ago as 1934, before the National Health Service was ever thought of.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. Friend confirm that every 12s. 6d. collected costs 11s. to collect, which makes the matter worse?

Mr. Hay: I have heard that said, but I cannot confirm or deny it.

Motor Show, Earls Court (Traffic Congestion)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the traffic congestion caused by the Earls Court motor show, he will enter into discussions with the organisers to hold the show further away from the centre of London.

Mr. Hay: We are aware of the traffic problems caused by the motor show. But a central site has advantages and I hope that the experiment in one-way working in the Earls Court Road-Warwick Road area, which is to start soon, will make things easier.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is being very optimistic to expect that one-way traffic working will do very much to minimise the enormous congestion which makes the motor show the worst week or two for London traffic during the whole year? Will he consider the advisability, in view of the lack of parking facilities and the fact that Earls Court is now too small for the exhibition, of asking the motor show people to hold their show at Farnborough, or somewhere like that, where there is plenty of room to put up tents and hundreds of thousands of cars can go there?

Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman is incurably pessimistic. I think that he should wait to see whether this scheme is as effective as we are quite sure it will be.

Vehicles (Abnormal Loads)

Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Minister of Transport when he now expects to issue the promised regulations providing for more control over mobile cranes with projecting jibs and vehicles with abnormal overhanging loads.

Mr. Marples: Regulations and an associated revision of the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order, which deal with the matters to which my hon. Friend refers and many others as well, are in proof and I hope to make and lay them before Parliament very shortly. They will come into effect in the autumn.

Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux: That sounds fine, but as my right hon. Friend told us 18 months ago that he hoped to come to a decision on this matter very shortly and he said last January that the regulations would be in existence in February, will he agree that people may not feel too confident about that assurance? If there is any further hold-up, will he give an assurance that he will get a bit tougher with the interested parties whom by Statute he has to consult and who have managed to hold up the making of these regulations for about eighteen months?

Mr. Marples: It is difficult for a person of sensitive nature to be tough with people. The reason for the delay is not a question of toughness nor of obstruction by the interested parties but it is because of the complex and complicated nature of the problem. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that if any delay is caused by people being obstructive, we shall be very firm with them. But it is not that, and I should like to absolve them from blame. There is delay because this is complex and complicated and I hope to make and lay these provisions before Parliament shortly. They will come into effect in the autumn.

Mr. Popplewell: This type of answer has been given for a long time. Two months ago the right hon. Gentleman assured me that these regulations would be ready by the end of May. I was in telephonic communication with his Department and afterwards he expressed an apology for the delay and assured me that they would be ready some time


pretty soon and that he would give me a date when he expected them to be ready. Is not this the same type of answer that he has repeatedly given and is he not aware that all local authorities are particularly disturbed about the delay in getting these regulations? We know that they may be complicated, but in view of the accidents that are taking place through overhanging loads he should urge his Department to come to a decision more speedily.

Mr. Marples: I have here some of the Questions asked by hon. Gentlemen. I cannot find any record of the hon. Gentleman asking me a Question. He may have had a telephone conversation but I have no record of it.

Mr. Popplewell: There was some correspondence.

Mr. Marples: I have given the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend that these provisions will be brought into effect in the autumn.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Train Departures (Delays)

Mr W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Transport if he will issue a general direction to the British Transport Commission that under no circumstances must the departure of trains be held up for the convenience of any passenger.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. The day-to-day operation of the railways is the responsibility of regional management.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what justification there is for holding up a train in Scotland for half an hour to enable the Home Secretary to return from his holidays? Can he say why on earth particularly Scottish Railways should in any way inconvenience themselves for a member of Her Majesty's Government at the present time?

Mr. Marples: The curious thing is that they did not inconvenience themselves. The train, although held back where it started, arrived at Stirling at the time scheduled in the timetable. Therefore, the passengers were not inconvenienced. In addition, they had the pleasure of the company of my right hon. Friend. Although Scotland may complain, England, too, has a complaint, because an hon. Gentleman opposite stopped a train going from Victoria to

East Croydon at half-past twelve in the morning and inconvenienced English passengers, and the hon. Gentleman had to pay compensation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am determined to invite the assistance of the House in getting on. We have not even managed to deal with 16 Questions by 3 o'clock today. Mr. Arthur Henderson, Question No. 16.

North-East Scotland

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for maintaining effective transport facilities in the north-east of Scotland following the closure of railway services in that area, in view of the effect that reduced facilities would have on the prosperity of the area.

Mr. Marples: I know of no proposals for the closure of railway services in north-east Scotland. But under the procedure proposed in the Transport Bill I shall have power to require the provision of alternative services in the light of the report which the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee will have to make to me on any proposed passenger closure.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman never read the newspapers? If he has no other sources of information, will he educate himself on this subject? Will he consult the President of the Board of Trade in order to change their joint policy of isolating north-east Scotland— a policy which is so damaging to the trade, industry and employment of that area— for one which will be beneficial?

Mr. Marples: Reading newspapers is not necessarily the same thing as being educated. I read them frequently and I see more rumours in them than come from anywhere else, except from Transport House. As I have said, there are no proposals at the present time, and therefore the hon. and learned Member's supplementary question is hypothetical.

Mr. Manuel: In considering proposals which will come to him in due course after the passing of the Transport Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Scotland before taking steps to close any of the Highland lines and agree with him on what road


adaptations, expenditure and equipment will be necessary in the Highlands to provide the travel facilities which would be necessary upon the closure of railway lines?

Mr. Marples: If and when proposals come to me I will certainly consult the Secretary of State.

Mr. Popplewell: The right hon Gentleman's answer is rather thin. Is he not aware that there are several proposals before the Transport Users' Consultative Committee to close some branch lines not only in Scotland but in Wales as well? As the final arbitrator of the decisions of the Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, before he agrees to any further closures, he will see that alternative transport is available for the inhabitants of these sparsely populated areas?

Mr. Marples: I said that I knew of no proposals for the closure of railway services in north-east Scotland. If and when they are proposed to me, the Consultative Committee will report on the hardship involved and on what alternative services may be necessary to alleviate it. That will be studied carefully.

Branch Lines (Closure Proposals)

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the increase in road traffic which will be needed if the present proposals for cutting branch lines are carried out.

Mr. Marples: When proposals for the closure of branch lines come before me I take into account in each case the possible effect on road traffic. In most of the current cases the use made of the line is so small that the transfer of the traffic to road will have no appreciable effect.

Sir Richard Pilkington: In principle, would it not be unwise to decrease rail traffic, of which we have too little, and increase road traffic, of which we have too much?

Mr. Marples: It depends on the circumstances of each individual case.

Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman denying, as he appeared to be doing in answer to earlier Questions, that the proposals of Dr. Beeching, if implemented, will mean an immense diversion of traffic from rail to road? Does he take

into account in calculating costs the cost of road-widening and so on and the accident rate, which is likely to go up? Will he consider all that when this major operation takes place, as promised by Dr. Beeching and supported by himself?

Mr. Marples: We ought to wait until we know what the proposals are. The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite are leaping to the argument as though they know exactly what Dr. Beeching is to propose. I do not know and he does not know, and how the right hon. Gentleman knows passes my comprehension.

Mr. Strauss: Has the Minister read Dr. Beeching's report in which he talks of drastic changes, drastic cutting down of branch lines and stopping trains, and so on? Is it all bluff? Does it mean nothing?

Mr. Marples: I have said that it will go before the Transport Users' Consultative Committee which will decide on questions of hardship and make recommendations to me. We will then see what alternative services are needed. But until we get the facts, it is no good going on trying to prophesy what will happen when we do not know what lines are to be closed. It is a profitable exercise politically, but sterile economically.

Local Services, Dorset

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport how many protests he has received from Dorset against the proposed cutting of such local railway services as have been the subject of recommendations to him from the Central Transport Consultative Committee.

Mr. Hay: None, Sir. The Central Transport Consultative Committee have been considering no proposals for withdrawing railway services in Dorset.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are a good many in the pipeline which he will get?

Mr. Hay: I answered the Question on the Order Paper. The Central Transport Consultative Committee has been considering no proposals. As my right hon. Friend said, no one can yet see what the future will be with certainty, and I would not, therefore, like to say whether there are any in the pipeline or not.

Orders of the Day — TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO INDEPENDENCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The object of the Bill is to provide for the independence of Trinidad and Tobago, and I have no doubt that it will be welcomed unanimously on both sides of the House. I think that we all welcome very much the fact that at the recent conference not only was agreement reached on the form of the constitution for independence, but, also, that there was a unanimously expressed desire both that Trinidad and Tobago should remain within the Commonwealth and that they should continue in allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen as Queen of Trinidad and Tobago.
I think that it is about 160 years since Trinidad was ceded to the British Crown, and since then the population has risen from 18,000 to over 800,000, and, of course, there have been very large developments in the economy of the islands. Whereas sugar was originally the mainstay of the economy, there have been subsequent developments of cocoa, and very effective development of the citrus industry. There is the famous pitch lake which provides so much of the world's road surfaces, and the very important development of oil which has now become one of the main supports of the economy of Trinidad and Tobago; and perhaps I should not fail to mention the other products in which Trinidad has a world monopoly, Angostura bitters.
Over a wide range of products, some small and some very large, there is no doubt in Trinidad and Tobago the basis for a strong economy. Indeed, this new country will enter into independence

with a stronger economic basis and better economic prospects than many countries already independent.
In addition to those basic industries, there has, of course, recently been a substantial development in industrialisation which has been encouraged by the legislation of the Government there, and there are many thriving and expanding industries now in Trinidad making their contribution to the welfare of the people.
In the social field, also, there have recently been great strides in education and in housing under the energetic leadership of the Premier, Dr. Williams, who, I think, all recognise as a man of quite outstanding intellect who will make a great contribution not only to the future of Trinidad and Tobago, but to the whole future of the Caribbean area.
For many reasons, I think that we can all feel confident that Trinidad and Tobago will enter on independence with good prospects. Of course, there are problems still to be solved, and we recognise that the problem of unemployment is one of them. Also, there have been problems, and they remain, in the constitutional field. I must say frankly that when I visitied Trinidad earlier this year, and up to the time of the constitutional conference, I was very much aware of the possible development of racial tensions within the island, and the possibility that politics in the island were polarised between the Government party largely supported by people of African background, and the opposition party largely supported by people of Indian background.
That, to my mind, was a very real danger. I was worried about it when the constitutional conference started, but I believe that we have made a big contribution towards its solution. In the first place, the constitution agreed on by the conference provides considerable safeguards for minorities and individuals. Secondly, I should like to pay a very sincere tribute to the statesmanship of Dr. Williams and of the Opposition leader, Dr. Capildeo, for the way in which they handled the conference and the way in which, at the end of the conference they united in determination to work together, both Opposition and Government, to make this one country with one nation. This effort on their part


deserves, and I am confident will receive, its reward in the progress of a happy and united nation.
I do not think that I need trouble the House long with the description of the Bill itself. It follows lines which have I think become familiar in recent years and is closely modelled on the Bills providing for the independence, for example, of Tanganyika and Sierra Leone, and other Bills which have been passed by the House recently. I do not think that there are any particular points to which I need draw the attention of the House at this stage.
Finally, I am sure that the House would wish me to pay a tribute to everyone concerned in developing Trinidad and Tobago to this present time when they can launch out on independence, and, in particular, I should like to pay tribute to the many civil servants both on the islands themselves and in this country who have played such a large part in this progress.
I suppose that the population of Trinidad and Tobago is as mixed in racial origin as almost any in the world, but I believe that for that reason the people of Trinidad and Tobago will have a special responsibility in the years ahead to prove what can be done in a relatively small island with a very mixed people by common sense, prudence, and good leadership. I think that I need say nothing more, in commending the Bill to the House and proposing that it should be read a Second time, than to say that with the independence of Trinidad and Tobago go the good wishes of every Member of the House to the people of the islands.

3.38 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: This is one more of a remarkable series of Bills which have been passing through this and preceding Parliaments by Which by far the greatest Empire of modern times is being transformed into a Commonwealth. Of course, we wish that in the case of the West Indies it was not so many Bills. We wish that it could have been done in one Bill, with one Federation, but this was not to be, and it is no use crying over spilt milk.
This Bill, like the Jamaica Bill which we considered the other day, sets up one more unit, and we hope that this one,

like the Jamaica unit, will prove viable both politically and economically. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has given an optimistic picture of the economic possibilities of these two islands as an independent country. Of course, independence is simply an opportunity in itself. It does not raise the standard of life for a single inhabitant of the country which becomes independent. It puts on the shoulders of the new Government many responsibilities.
I think that these two countries, which have reached a certain stage of development, should be able to accept that opportunity and make something of it and raise the standard of life. That is really putting it too narrowly. I should have said raise the whole level of civilisation and well-being of their peoples. But we must recognise that they face very great complications and difficulties in doing so, and we must still be intimately concerned to help them.
The Secretary of State has said that, on the whole, Trinidad and Tobago have stronger economies than have some other parts of the West Indies, and I have no doubt that that is true. But they have also more complex economies. I do not pretend to have an intimate local knowledge of these islands, but from simply reading about them I am impressed with the degree to which the economy of this new Commonwealth country depends upon one economic factor— oil. Dr. Williams emphasises and re-emphasises this dependence.
It is a wonderful asset in many ways for a country to have oil resources crude in the ground beneath it, and beneath the seas surrounding it, and also, in this case, to have a major refinery which can process not only its native oil, but oil brought to it the whole way from the Near East. Nevertheless, to those who have heard Dr. Williams, or read his statements, it is clear that in his mind this is very much a complication, as well as being an asset.
How can it be otherwise, when the future of these communities in the Caribbean and many others in the Middle East, both inside and outside the Commonwealth, is bound up with the outlook in the world oil trade, and when that trade is dominated by a handful of great international corporations— the most enormous examples of what is


anachronistically called private enterprise? They are hardly that they form some of the vastest corporative entities in the world.
They are enterprises founded, and necessarily still conducted, essentially for the profit of their shareholders. That is their whole character. I do not blame them for that. It is inevitable that they should have been founded and conducted in that way. But the House should take note of the fact that they have now become so vast that they dominate the economic future prospects of communities such as Trinidad and Tobago.
This is no place to suggest a remedy nor have I any quick, easy, or glib remedy to suggest. But I doubt whether the world can go on indefinitely with this gigantic enterprise of oil, which, on an economic scale, is different from any other commercial enterprise in the world, and is entirely in the hands of a great oligopoly— to use the economists' term— of oil companies, with their peculiar pricing policy.
This policy may be right or wrong. It has much to be said for it from the point of view of oil producers. But the price is not a natural one. It has nothing to do with the marginal world price of a ton of oil. It is quite artificially fixed. These companies have elaborate relationships, by way of royalties, with the Governments of the countries from which the oil comes. I simply want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, upon this country becoming independent, we have the creation of another independent oil State, whose whole future is deeply bound up with the vast, world-wide question of the conduct of the oil industry.
This is nothing that Her Majesty's Government can settle or alter on their own; it is essentially an international question. But it is of great importance to realise that the operation of the industry purely for private profit is becoming steadily more and more a world-wide anachronism.
The Secretary of State has mentioned several other economic sources of Trinidad and Tobago which they will be anxious to develop. There is sugar. That at once raises the question of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement just as did the independence of Jamaica. This is a question of the utmost importance.

When I was Minister of Food I took part in the negotiation of the agreement, and I am naturally, especially interested in it. Apart from that, every West Indian Prime Minister emphasises that it is the linchpin of his country's economy today. In respect of both oil and sugar the future of this new independent member of the Commonwealth is closely bound up with the Common Market negotiations now going on in Brussels.
On more than one occasion Dr. Williams has expressed concern for his export outlet of oil to the European Economic Community, and the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is also very much in question in those negotiations. We should deal very poorly with this new member of the Commonwealth if, at the very start of her career, we did not do our utmost to protect and foster her interests in the Common Market negotiations. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to reassure us on that subject.
One other economic aspect is of very great importance. I repeat what I said on the Jamaica Independence Bill: this Bill seems to provide another opportunity to press the issue of the extension of the powers of the Commonwealth Development Corporation to initiate new schemes in independent members of the Commonwealth. The C.D.C. is doing wonderful work throughout the world, but it will become more and more stultified as each territory and Colony becomes independent if that independence simply freezes its activities, so that it is unable to put forward new schemes in these territories.
Such a development would be exceedingly unfortunate for private profit-making enterprise in these areas. It is the universal experience of these countries that the activities of the C.D.C. have been an enormous help in the development of ordinary private profit-making activities, because they lead to the provision of capital and the creation of confidence. Far from stultifying private enterprise in these areas, the activities of the C.D.C. give enormous encouragement to its development.
I have pressed both the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations on this subject. So far, we have had sympathetic replies, but nothing has been


done. There is still no sign of the new legislation which I understand to be necessary. We had more luck with the Under-Secretary the other day. He made a most forthright statement, but I was left wondering whether or not he was committing the Government.
We should like to know. He told us that it must be done. But we should like the Secretary of State, or some other Cabinet Minister, to commit himself in the same way. Even more, we should like the appearance of legislation. This is really important. The months go on and more and more members of the Commonwealth become independent and the issue becomes even more urgent. We have pressed and I give notice that we shall continue to do so on every possible occasion, for new legislation, and that the C.D.C., which has had a most successful year, shall have removed the shackles which seem more and more tightly to constrict its activities.
Those are only some of the extremely important and complex economic issues which face this interesting new member of the Commonwealth. The Minister referred to the political issues. All who have heard or read Dr. Williams's views must be impressed by his grasp of political themes, with his understanding of the working of political democracy and with his determination to make Trinidad and Tobago a working democracy if he can possibly do so. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it will take some doing, with that extremely mixed racial composition of the islands. Nevertheless, a most promising start seems to have been made.
I was very impressed by his account of the degree of popular participation in constitution making and the consideration of the Constitution, and his racy description of the discussions on the Constitution which, he tells us, go on in the rum shops of the islands. And why not? After all, a great deal of our own political discussion is done in the "pubs" of this country, so there is nothing new about that. It does sound as though the people of the islands have reached a point at which they can make reality of democracy and not have a mere paper Constitution.
The Bill seems straightforward. There are involved legal Clauses for clearing up naturalisation questions and the like, but I am sure that we can leave such questions as need clearing up either to the Committee stage or to further debate this afternoon. It remains only for me to say farewell to another Colony and to welcome another independent member of the Commonwealth.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: On behalf of hon. Members on the back benches on both sides of the House, I should like to say how much we welcome the Bill. Many of us who believed sincerely in the idea of a Federation of the West Indies had hoped that Trinidad would find her independence as part of the independence of a wider Federation. But that was not to be. The referendum in Jamaica destroyed that hope.
I believe that Dr. Williams was quite right when he commented that ten minus one does not leave nine— it leaves nought. I think we accept that. It does not make the idea of federation wrong. I am quite sure that it was right. But we accept that, under present circumstances, the decision of Trinidad to "go it alone", like Jamaica, was probably the one that she felt obliged to take. Some of us had hoped last December that Trinidad might have given a lead to the smaller islands, to the other eight, no doubt helped financially by the United Kingdom. But as things have turned out, the concept of a unitary State was not agreeable to the eight smaller islands and the concept of a federation of the remaining nine was not agreeable to Trinidad.
We must accept that. If there is one thing which we have learned by now, I hope, in the school of experience— and, incidentally, I hope that we have learned it in relation to Central Africa as well— it is that, however desirable economically a federal system of government may seem to us, it is not likely to succeed unless it is acceptable politically to the people of the component units of the Federation. It is no use imposing federations from the top. We have learned that they must grow by consent through the hearts and minds of the people. So we see Trinidad and Jamaica walking alone and independently on to the world stage.
I do not think that their parts can be very large ones yet, and they are bound to be rather expensive parts for the actors, more expensive individually perhaps than they would have been as a combined West Indian effort. But they may well be very influential parts, particularly at this time, both in the Commonwealth and to the whole world. if they can illustrate, as I hope and I think that they can, to the larger nations how multi-racial communities can live and work together in friendship. This is a lesson which the whole world has yet to learn— how to find the solution to this most difficult of our problems in this half of the twentieth century. I believe that Trinidad's influence in illustrating the solution of this problem could be very important for us all.
If she is wise, Trinidad is especially fitted to give this example. There can be few nations, large or small, which contain such a wide racial diversity within their own boundaries. The old animosities between a white ruling class and a coloured subject people have gone. But they have given place to other racial difficulties between those of African and Indian descent, as we all know, and it seems to me that this is a great opportunity, indeed a duty, for Trinidad to reconcile these differences and to create a united nation of patriotic Trinidadians, whatever may be their racial origins. I am quite sure that Trinidad is capable, economically and politically, of running her own show and guiding her own destiny. There is no doubt about that.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) pointed out, economically she is fortunate in possessing that almost priceless commodity, oil, which places her in a far better position than her sister islands, which are mainly dependent on agriculture. That is not to say that Trinidad does not rely a great deal on sugar and citrus for the employment and prosperity of her people. Of course she does. But I think that I am right in saying that she depends upon oil for 40 per cent. of her revenue and 80 per cent. of her export trade. Because of oil Trinidad has a higher standard of living, not only higher than the other Caribbean islands, but higher

than many of the Latin American countries and most of the African and Asian countries of the Commonwealth.
As a producer and refiner, Trinidad's prosperity rests on the export of oil. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will bear this in mind in his negotiations with the Common Market countries of Europe.
Politically, we in this House have been very careful never, if possible, to take sides between different parties and Governments in our Colonial Territories. We have tried to leave that to the democratic wishes of their own peoples. Nevertheless, without wishing to breach that convention, I should be doing less than justice by the Government of Trinidad if I did not say what I honestly believe and have seen for myself. It is that Trinidad presents a very different picture today from what she did seven or eight years ago, in 1955, when I first visited the island.
I remember going there two years ago from British Guiana. British Guiana is a country of great charm, character and fascination, but to go from Georgetown to Port of Spain is like going from a provincial town to a great, active bustling capital city full of activity and purpose, and one cannot fail to be impressed by it. Whatever criticism there may be of the Government of Trinidad — and, of course, there are criticisms of any Government, however excellent, even the United Kingdom Government at the present time— Dr. Williams's Government in Trinidad has been an effective, a successful and an honest Government.
I have many friends in both the main political parties in Trinidad, but, at the risk of annoying some of them who sit on the Opposition benches in Trinidad, I must say that in my view Dr. Williams, for whom I have great personal regard, respect and admiration—and, I hope he will not mind my saying, a personal affection—has done a very fine job as Premier. He is certainly a man, as we all acknowledge, of undoubted ability who has done very much for his country during these last few years.
The Constitutional Conference held recently in London was not a particularly easy one. It was not nearly as easy as


the Jamaican one, where almost all the difficult and controversial points had been agreed in Jamaica before ever the political leaders came to London. That was not the case with the Trinidad Conference. When the Trinidad Government published the first draft of the Constitution, letters poured in to me every day from distinguished people in Trinidad complaining about various aspects of it. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House had the same experience. Distinguished citizens of Trinidad who happened to be in this country at the time came to see me in genuine anxiety and distress. I had qualms myself about some of the points in the Constitution; but I think that most of those fears have now been allayed.
The draft Constitution was widely distributed throughout Trinidad and Tobago and comments were sought from individuals and representative organisations of every kind. The Constitution was discussed, as Dr. Williams told me personally, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, quite seriously in every rum shop in Port of Spain! Then there was the great conference to debate the draft at the Queen's Hall when amendments and modifications were proposed and accepted. Even so, there were still genuine apprehensions when the conference met in London and a solution acceptable to both political parties and to the two main racial groups still appeared difficult. I pay my tribute to the work of everyone at that Conference. Dr. Williams was most statesmanlike in his offer of many compromise suggestions and the Opposition leaders, Dr. Capildeo and Mr. Ashford Sinanan, met him half way, in fact more than half way, in moving towards an agreed solution.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary played a valuable and most important part in helping to bring the two sides together. The outcome is certainly a credit to everyone, the Colonial Office and the political leaders alike, and we congratulate them upon it. I think that our hopes for the future of Trinidad can be justifiably high. Economically, if we go into the Common Market, as I personally hope we shall, we must try to achieve associate status

for her. We must safeguard her oil interests and the basis of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, on which all the West Indies territories so greatly depend for their employment and prosperity.
Politically, from now on it is up to Trinidad herself. If she can resolve her own racial problem, which is the most difficult of all, I am sure that she will have a hopeful and happy future. Given good will and understanding, I am sure that she can do that. It will require tolerance and statesmanship from the leaders of both races. I want Trinidad to prove that she possesses these qualities, as I am sure she does. I want her to set an example to other nations, larger nations, faced with this same problem. We are all gratified that she is staying within the British Commonwealth of Nations and that she will continue to owe allegiance to the Crown. These are unifying features for the future which in no way diminish her status as an independent member of the Commonwealth but which exemplify the loyalty and good will which, although independent, she still feels for the Commonwealth and this country and towards Her Majesty the Queen personally.
Knowing as I do the breadth of vision of Dr. Williams and many others in Trinidad, and their feeling for the unity and co-operation of the whole Caribbean area, I am certain that she will play her full part in working the common services and other unifying influences in the Caribbean and building upon for the future of the West Indies. I go further — and I have heard Dr. Williams say this himself— and say that a cardinal point in Trinidad's foreign policy will be to integrate not only the British Caribbean, but the whole area of the Caribbean in a wider and even more significant unity Whether it be only economic or ultimately political, we cannot yet tell. In that work and in every other aspect of her endeavour, whether within her own boundaries, within the Caribbean, within the Commonwealth, or on the wider world stage, I know that we in this House, on both sides, because both panties have contributed, wish Trinidad very well indeed in the future. We can be rightly proud to have brought her to the independent nationhood which now unfolds before her.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: In welcoming the Bill, hon. Members on both sides of the House will join the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) in paying tribute to Dr. Eric Williams. Apart from the leadership he gives to his country at the moment he has the solid achievement of having brought modern politics to Trinidad. He has brought to Trinidad the concept of modern political parties with a careful philosophy and a balanced programme and he has carefully worked out a development plan and all the trappings of the best type of modern government. He brought that almost de novo to Trinidad. That is one past achievement and he is now bringing it into full flower, but his greatest achievement has yet to come.
If Dr. Williams succeeds, as he may well do in the long run, where we have failed in creating a greater organisation of States in the Caribbean that may well be something of which he can be very proud indeed. As the House should know, he has started consultations with Surinam and he has just come back from Europe where, it has been publicly announced, he has been talking about the future of Martinique and Guadeloupe into some sort of wider association in the Caribbean. This man loses no time. His country's independence is only just around the corner, but he is already busy in seeing how the future of the Caribbean can be achieved where British attempts have failed. If he succeeds, very good luck to him and all admiration to him for the effort he has made.
The danger in talking about Trinidad is that in one way we imitate Dr. Williams, who does something which we cannot do. I have seen him, but I have not heard him. I wish I had. Occasionally he has addressed his Legislative Assembly for five hours at a stretch, presenting his Budget proposals. This seems to be a feature of Trinidad life; one can develop in extenso every feature of political and economic government. I shall be much briefer than that.
Nevertheless, there are four urgent and important questions, at least, which I want to raise at the end of my remarks. They are questions about the continuing responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government in this area. The dangers too often in giving independence

to various parts of the Commonwealth is that after the debate we tend to think that nothing more remains for us to do. There are four very important matters about which I want to hear from the Government in connection with our responsibilites.
Let me say, however, that I believe that Trinidad is ready for independence. Hon. Members have mentioned the fortunate position which arises largely from the possession of oil, and it is worth recording that the gross national product of Trinidad per head in West Indian dollars is about 900 dollars per annum, compared with 500 in Jamaica and 250 in the Leeward Islands, part of the British West Indies. If one has 900 dollars compared with 500 dollars or 250 dollars, one has a good head start, and this is Trinidad's important beginning on the road to independence. Her economy is off the ground, so to speak, and on that basis she has a good prospect of a reasonable future.
It goes further than that, because in a quotation which I have given before, but which is worth mentioning again, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, when it made a £ 40 million loan recently to Trinidad for electricity development, paid glowing tributes to the economic situation in that island. In one section it said:
With a per capita income of about 850 West Indian dollars, the people of Trinidad enjoy one of the highest standards of living of any Afro-Asian community. Trinidad is one of the most prosperous places in central and South America. While population density is high— 430 per square mile—and population growth is rapid, there is yet no pressing land shortage. A system of universal primary education has resulted in a high degree of literacy. Free secondary education has recently been introduced and certain types of university education are now available.
It refers to the existence of a substantial middle-class and to the fact that the P.N.M. Government's record has been good. It adds:
Social services and public utilities have been expanding. The five-year development programme begun in 1958 has been the instrument of these measures and has been financed in large part by budget revenue surpluses.
This is some tribute from an international body of such repute as the International Bank, and it shows that Trinidad has been wisely governed and has a good basis on which to start.
With a secondary education population today of 18,000, it is possibly the best-educated island in the Caribbean in that sense. There is a higher proportion of secondary education than anywhere else, which is an achievement of the present Government.
May I say a word about the political ripeness of Trinidad for independence? This has been well said already. Not only was the new Constitution widely discussed, but one of the fascinating things which I found in Trinidad was that when the P.N.M., the ruling party, made up its mind not to go along with the Federation, there was an enormous manifesto, going into such detail as we should not dare, as British politicians, to present to the British people.
This is an enormous document, which starts like a legal document, with the word whereas" at the beginning of twenty-two separate paragraphs. There is one long piece of economic argument after another and it says, "Whereas" twenty-two times. It ends:
Be it Resolved" that we shall not for these reasons continue the Federation of the West Indies.
This is high political education, and something which we should not dare to put across in Great Britain. All credit to the P.N.M. party, or any other party of Trinidad, if it can bring its people to swallow the real stuff of economic and political decisions which have to be made in modern communities.
I want to ask a number of questions about Trinidad's future which depends a great deal on our responsibilities. Let me take, first, the agreement about the base at Chaguaramas. The agreement in respect of this big American base in Trinidad was signed by Her Majesty's Government and it is our responsibility that the base exists. There is a new recent agreement between Trinidad and America, which I understand that we counter-signed and, therefore, to some extent we are responsible for it. Under it, the base is to be reduced in size and the period of the operation of the agreement is to be reduced. In return for the base, the United States Government were to undertake five big development projects in the Island of Trinidad.
I am concerned to hear that, pending independence and all the previous nego

tiations, none of these five projects has got under way. These are very important to Trinidad. The position has gone so far that the Trinidad Government have accused the United States Government of dragging their feet in putting this agreement into operation. I do not know whether that is true, but I should like some indication of what communications there have been with the United States Government as a result of our responsibility in the matter, and whether it is expected that at least some of these projects— for example, one is a road between Port of Spain and Chaguaramas— are to be put under way quickly. It must not be allowed to drift or to fall by the wayside after independence.
A more important aspect of that agreement was the American agreement to build the College of Arts, which is to be the Trinidad end of the university of the West Indies. I understand that this should have been opened later this year, but that the building has not been started. Something is going very wrong here, and it is important that the Under-Secretary, on behalf of the Colonial Office, should give us an assurance that inquiries will be made of the American signatories to this agreement, as part of our responsibilities, to make sure that the agreement is to be carried out and that there will be no more undue delay in putting the tangible parts of it into quick operation as a contribution to the development of Trinidad. These matters are important out there.
The second problem which I wanted to raise was that of economic aid for Trinidad. This was mentioned in the debate on Jamaica—the problem of C.D.C. investment. There is, however, another aspect. Trinidad has never had colonial development and welfare aid. We are due to do something in Trinidad associated with independence. Because the standard of living is higher than in other parts of the Caribbean, it does not mean that the Trinidad problem is easy. Trinidad has 12 to 15 per cent. unemployment and 12 to 15 per cent. partially employed. There are very often explosive mixtures of hope and fear in a developing community, and we must do something to help Trinidad during the next stage of economic development.
The crying need — and meeting it would most contribute to a construction


boom and thus jack up the economy of Trinidad through its next stages— is working-class houses. We can get money to some extent—I have done it myself—for Caribbean houses, but the trouble is that we can get British money, British mortgage finance and British industrial interests only for middle-class housing. There is no chance of getting private enterprise money for Trinidad working-class housing, nor for Jamaican working-class housing, for that matter. Trinidad now needs a construction boom of anything like 20,000, 30,000 or more houses in the £ 1,000 range. This is its crying need. With the standard of living, there are ready purchasers for such houses. They are not, in the main, houses for renting. That is not the the Caribbean tradition. They need houses for sale at about £ 1,000.
I have tried to raise money in Britain for similar projects in Jamaica in that price range. I have failed. There is no profit in it. There is not much in it to interest a private investor. The production costs are cut right to the bone to sell houses at that price.
It is important that we should help Trinidad with loans to enable her to undertake working-class housing on that scale. It is important not only to jack the economy up by a construction boom but also to keep quiet the inevitable anti-democratic forces which exist in a community with 12 per cent. to 15 per cent. unemployed. This would be a great stabilising force in the island. We should offer help in any way we can.
There is also a poor part of Trinidad. That is Tobago. Tobago, as the report of the International Bank shows, is getting a fair share of development finance. Nevertheless, it remains a poor area. I should be delighted if we could allocate some loans to help the development of Trinidad, particularly Tobago.
My third question is about the Common Market and Trinidad's position. We should have an assurance from the Government that the particular requirements of Trinidad will be safeguarded in any agreement about British and Commonwealth association with the Common Market. The key point is that the agreement linking nearby Curacao with the Common Market is based on a production quota of refined oil. This is no good to Trinidad, because she is a

producer of oil as well. The amount of oil coming from Trinidad is bound to increase. They are exploring under the seabed as well as in Trinidad itself.
Therefore, any agreement with the Common Market must make provision for an expanding contribution of oil from Trinidad and must not be based on a quota system related to past production. This is important, just as the safeguarding of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreements is important in the future of the Common Market. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that these things will be borne in mind, particularly in the negotiations about the Common Market.
My fourth question is a simple one, which I referred to at the beginning of my remarks. I refer to wider association in the Caribbean. Dr. Williams is starting where we left off. He is trying to build something new in the Caribbean. He is talking with anybody who is willing to talk, whether it is about political association, economic union, or common trading areas. He is exploring from the beginning. He has explored already with France. I understand that he has had a reasonably good reception in Europe. Indeed, a French mission is going to Port of Spain soon, and I understand that it may discuss the future of Guadaloupe and Martinique in the Caribbean area with Dr. Williams.
We want an assurance from the Government that they will keep happily in touch with Dr. Williams and anybody else and help forward the building of something larger in the Caribbean. We have a great influence in the area, even after independence. We shall have influence with the little Eight. We shall have influence with everybody else, because of our long-standing historical position. We must be assured that at every stage the wider objectives, the wider horizons, and the more imaginative ideas for the Caribbean, will always be kept in mind by Her Majesty's Government and that they will do everything they can to help the Island of Trinidad when it begins to take the lead in exploring the future.
I have said as much as I need. I hope that I shall receive satisfactory answers to the questions I have raised. Like other hon. Members, I end by


saying what a pleasure it is to be supporting the advent of Trinidad as a new independent member of the British Commonwealth. Her history, her achievements, and her probable economic future all point to the fact that we are making a wise decision today in giving her independence.

4.25 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: As I have very recently had the opportunity of visiting Trinidad and Tobago I should like to say a few words. Unfortunately, I have not the detailed knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). I remind the hon. Member for Northfield that it is not only Ministers who have the opportunity of speaking for a long time in Trinidad; even back benchers have three-quarters of an 'hour. If their speeches are agreeable to everybody there are cries of, "Go on" and they get another half an hour, which I found a little too much.
I support the hon. Member for Northfield in the points he raised about the American bases. I will not go into the points the hon. Gentleman so ably made. I hope that we shall receive satisfactory answers to them.
I want to say something about the help which might be given through colonial development and welfare funds. If we are to give any form of farewell present, I suggest that we should do something to help the educational programme. It is true that Trinidad has more pupils in the schools than some of the other islands, but the overcrowding in the schools in Trinidad is fantastic. I went to schools where it was practically impossible for the young girls or boys to write, at the same time because they were so crowded and I hope that this situation will be remedied, perhaps with some help from this country.
As I said when I spoke on the Jamaica Independence Bill, I trust that we shall continue to do something with regard to housing, perhaps through the Colonial Development Corporation, because there is still a pressing need for this.
I was interested to learn that the original name in the local language for

the islands of Trinidad and Tobago was "the Land of the Humming Bird". This is a delightful sounding name, rather appropriate when one considers the type of population now in the island. It is the second largest of the Caribbean Islands, and as my right hon. Friend said, it has a highly cosmopolitan population. There are French, Spanish, English and Chinese backgrounds to a great many people in the island, and at least 35 per cent. of the people are East Indians. The rest are of African stock.
They begin with one advantage which many other places which have recently become independent have not got, they all speak English as their first language. This should have a unifying effect, as they do not have to learn English, with the possible exception of a few Chinese, as their second language in order to unify themselves. English is their national language.
It has been pointed out that this area is a very rich one. The Pitch Lake will be celebrating 100 years in the hands of one firm. From the early days it has brought considerable prosperity to the island. This unique lake has perhaps concentrated the eyes of people on this island more than would have otherwise been the case.
It is interesting to find that the island's exports have risen from £ 37 million in 1950 to £ 103 million in 1960. If exports continue to increase at this rate— there does not seem to be any reason why they should not, in view of the very rich soil, oil, timber, etc.— there should be plenty of chance for the future prosperity of the island.
I was recently rather interested to read a book describing Trinidad's history. At one time, apparently, it was suggested, that some elected members might be added to the then House of Representatives, but that was not considered possible because it was said that it would be "perilous in the extreme for this heterogeneous and educationally backward Colony". That was in 1890, yet today we are welcoming the independence of these two islands.
We have been reminded this afternoon that they have formed a democratic type of Government on the lines that we have here in the United Kingdom, and that Dr. Williams has pushed forward with modern methods, but I hope, too. that he


and whatever party is in power will remember the safeguarding of minorities. There is real fear— perhaps political fear, because we know that political parties can engender fears for their own political reasons— amongst the minority races as to their future.
When I was in Trinidad and read the draft Constitution I found that there were thirty or forty instances of power being vested in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day. It is still felt that there are too few members of the minority races in the police, in judicial posts in the Civil Service and the Army.
I hope that, in future, due opportunity will be given to all races to serve in those posts if they so wish. One does not, of course, wish to force them to join. They may not have been so keen to join in the past, but it would be very advantageous to an independent Trinidad if all races could play their part in the service of their country—

Mr. Fisher: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I know that she appreciates that there is no racial difficulty about this at all. In the police, the Army, and so on, it is simply a matter of attaining certain physical standards, in rather the same way as in this country. That is the main limiting factor. I do not think that anyone has been excluded from public service on grounds of race.

Miss Vickers: I thank my hon. Friend, but that is what I have heard.
I think it rather astonishing that there should be such a considerable number of those descended from negro, African and not of other stocks who are considered to be physically and educationally fit. That should be watched very carefully, because I cannot see why those of one race should be so predominantly better physically than the others, when all have been brought up in equal surroundings. Perhaps, as I say, some of these people have not been so keen on joining but, with independence, they are now more eager.
I was in Trinidad when Dr. Williams made his radio speech, which I found intensely interesting, about the Constitution. It was a very wise move. I hope that the many suggestions received will be considered and that there will be full co-operation, such as I understand there

has not been so far, by all political parties in drafting the Constitution. It is no good putting forward suggestions and then refusing to attend the meetings at which those suggestions are discussed. This led, rightly, to criticisms of non-co-operation. I hope that when Trinidad becomes independent all will do their best to get rid of political divisions based on race, as this will be most important for the future of the country.
I raised one point about nationality when we discussed Clause 2 of the Jamaica Independence Bill and the same thing is similarly stated in this Bill. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary was kind enough to reply to me on that occasion. It seems that the question of whether citizenship should be conferred on such persons as I there referred to is a matter of consultation with the Government of Jamaica, and that in this case it will be a matter of consultation with the Government of Trinidad. It is extremely important that, as there are common law marriages, no young persons shall be deemed not to be citizens because they were then born out of wedlock. If we cannot safeguard their position here, I hope that a safeguard can be written into the Trinidad Constitution.
Many of the women's organisations are very politically conscious and have taken great interest in the future Constitution of the country. They have raised the question of dual citizenship. They feel that there may be people born in this country who have taken up their work in Trinidad or Tobago, who wish to live there, and who now regard themselves as local people. At the same time, they do not want to opt just for Trinidad citizenship, but would also like to keep their British citizenship. Will it be possible for them to have both British and Trinidad citizenship if they so desire? It is thought that many people who have given valuable service in many walks of life may, fearing loss of British citizenship, want to return to this country. They would be greatly missed in the country concerned.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and I were in Trinidad at the time of the dissolution of the Federal Parliament. In fact, we attended a luncheon which was, I believe, the last official function of that Parliament. We


felt very sorry about the dissolution, but quite understood the reasons for it, but, with the hon. Member for Northfield, I feel that there may be an opportunity for Trinidad to take a lead in the Caribbean area in the future. Geographically, Jamaica is very far away from Trinidad, British Guiana and the Little Eight. It may be simpler and easier for Trinidad to take the lead. This would be very advantageous for the future.
We must all commiserate with Lord Hailes over the failure of the Federation. I think that it is in order to mention him in connection with Trinidad, because that was where he was stationed. It has been a very great disappointment to him that his mission did not succeed, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton that one cannot force any form of federation on an unwilling population. Nevertheless, credit must be given to Lord Hailes for the way in which he worked for it, and it is no discredit to him that it did not succeed. I hope that we may pay full tribute to him for all that he did in a very difficult job, as he has left the islands with the respect and, I think I may say, the affection of all concerned.
I join with right hon. and hon. Members in wishing Trinidad and Tobago a very successful future as a member of the Commonwealth, and I hope that we shall be able to have an even closer co-operation and understanding with them in the future.

4.40 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: Most of the points I wished to make have already been touched on and, as the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Miss Vickers) said, the only adverse criticism we had to make was about the length of speeches we experienced in Trinidad and Tobago. I hope to set a good example and to be brief.
I am delighted that the recent conference on the independence provisions has ended, as far as one can judge, in the spirit of co-operation and amity. When I was in Trinidad recently I could not help feeling certain doubts about this because of the very poor state of relationships that existed between the Government and the Opposition at that time. There was a great deal of friction and far too little co-operation. This

friction had been engendered partly because of the experiences at the last election. We heard a great deal about voting machines, and so on.
I am happy to note from the general provisions in the White Paper that there is to be in the future more formal arrangements for consultation between the Government and the Opposition. During the interesting visit we paid to the Trinidad Legislature we were able to put a number of questions to Members there. It struck us that the "usual channels" were more than usually conspicuous by their absence. There seemed to be no provision for formal consultation, even in day-to-day Parliamentary business, and if a degree of co-operation can be established it will be all to the good.
It was particularly encouraging to learn at the end of the discussions in London that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition together pledged themselves to future co-operation. I hope that there will be co-operation between the two sides so that the new Constitution will work and that prosperity will come under independence. We realise, of course, that there are bound to be differences of opinion.
To be brief in my remarks, I will merely underline some of the points made by other hon. Members. It is clear that the West Indies will follow with the closest attention the provisions that are made by Her Majesty's Government should we enter the Common Market. We are all aware of the need to safeguard the sugar industry in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) said. Trinidad has a special interest. This also applies to oil agreements. Dr. Williams made it clear when in London recently that they will be far from satisfied with the sort of quota arrangements now in force with the Netherlands West Indies and that something more flexible is essential for the prosperity of Trinidad. I would issue a warning to Her Majesty's Government that we shall pay close attention to this matter.
I strongly support what has been said about education and housing, the two most difficult social problems in Trinidad. The courageous efforts that have been made to improve secondary education are, indeed, worthy of respect


and we all wish well to the proposed new college of further education. Like the hon. Member for Devonport, I was deeply concerned at the fantastic overcrowding in the primary schools. I have visited schools in various parts of the world, but I do not think I have ever seen such overcrowding as exists in the schools we visited in Trinidad. They may, for local reasons, have been particularly bad examples of overcrowding, but I cannot see how teachers can teach or pupils learn in conditions where the children cannot even write because they cannot move their elbows, so closely are they packed together.
Three teachers were trying to teach simultaneously in a room that was so crowded that they could not move between the desks. Only a flimsy screen divided the classroom from the next, in Which three more teachers were trying simultaneously to teach in a similarly overcrowded room. Anything that can be done by teacher training and other schemes to assist in providing more teachers for this territory would be a useful contribution we could make, even after independence.
I, too, was much impressed by the initiative of Dr. Williams in trying to enlist the interest of the ordinary elector in constitutional and other political matters. It was a fascinating exercise in adult education to see the way in which he has tackled the discussions on the Constitution. A purist in Parliamentary government might suggest that it was not in the most sophisticated Parliamentary tradition to go to the highways and byways, asking all and sundry to send in their comments on a draft Constitution. As a method of enlisting interest it was, as far as I can judge, a successful operation.
Like the hon. Member for Devonport, I heard Dr. Williams's broadcast on the subject of the Constitution. It was a masterly effort and although there was considerable disquiet among certain elements in the Opposition in the way he was proceeeding, he was at the heart of the matter and was justified, considering the circumstances, in going about it in the way he did. I hope that, with the improvement in feeling between the Government and Opposition parties, we may look forward to seeing in

Trinidad the development of a political system which will be a model of democratic government in that part of the world.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell (Liverpool, Kirkdale): It is unusual on these occasions to strike a discordant note. I do so with considerable diffidence because I have not had an opportunity to visit this territory. It is an extremely small one, the two islands comprising less than 2,000 square miles, with a population of just over 800,000. It will be the smallest independent unit in the Commonwealth, with the exception of Cyprus. There were special considerations concerning Cyprus which do not apply in this case.
Considering that we are now heading in the direction of very small independent territories, I completely admit that Trinidad and Tobago are more advanced and have greater economic self-sufficiency than many territories that have recently achieved their independence. But many of the smaller territories are in Africa. There are former French territories, colonies such as the Gaboon and Congo Republics, both with populations of less than half a million. But there is a difference in that these countries continue to be linked with metropolitan France in matters of culture, economics, finance and defence.
We in the British Commonwealth act differently. We make a clean cut. We cut the painter and let the small craft adrift on the troubled waters of independence with only the tenuous connection of inter-commonwealth relations to maintain any influence we may have. It was only two years ago that we thought that Sierra Leone, with a population of 2½ million, was a marginal case for independence. Things have moved fast since then and today we are applauding the granting of independence to a community of less than 1 million.
I ask myself where the process will stop. There are many other territories in the Commonwealth with populations approaching half a million and which may aspire to independence. To mention a few, Mauritius, Fiji, and British Guiana. I think that it will not make for the strength of the Commonwealth if we have the Prime Ministers of these


small countries conferring on equal terms with the Prime Ministers of the giants like India, Pakistan, Canada and Australia.
I have said that only to express why I feel no great enthusiasm for this Measure, although I admit that it may be inevitable. The Federation of the West Indies was a bold conception which has failed. We now have Jamaica made independent and we shall shortly have Trinidad independent and we hope that there will be a grouping of the other eight small islands into another independent State. There will, therefore, be three small independent communities, a sort of balkanisation of the Caribbean which I do not think is to be specially welcomed.
I join with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who expressed a hope that some time in the near future there will be some regrouping and some larger association of these independent states on perhaps a federal basis which will give more meaning to independence and will give them greater power and influence in the world. In saying that, I would not exclude the possibility of some French islands such as Guadaloupe and Martinique joining such a federation.
Reference has been made to racial differences in Trinidad and I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's assurance that these differences have been overcome. Apprehension was strongly expressed by the Indian element, representatives of which recently visited this country. I do not know the details of the guarantees which have been given. There is a reference in the White Paper, Cmnd. 1757 to the entrenched clauses safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of the individual irrespective of race, and so on.
But I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that the apprehensions of the Indians in this respect have been fully allayed. Many considerations which we felt in the past were necessary before the granting of independence have been abandoned long ago. The one which I feel must not be abandoned is the protection of minorities in the countries for which we have relinquished responsibility.
I would refer with some hesitation to my right hon. Friend's statement that Trinidad will not only remain within the Commonwealth, but will continue to owe allegiance to the Crown. That in itself is welcome. It has been welcomed on many occasions in this House when independence has been granted to colonies in recent years. I hope that in this case it will not be followed in a few months by a declaration of intention to declare a republic. This would be unfortunate. I know that disrespect is not intended, but the world must think that it implies a certain disrespect. I should have thought that if there were that possibility the country embarking upon independence should be given the choice, on achieving independence, to elect for a republican status from the beginning, instead of accepting allegiance to the Crown only to reject it in a few months.

Mr. Chapman: The hon. Member is acting quite properly in raising this matter. But I would point out that the White Paper carefully sets out most of the points which would need an amendment of the Constitution to change the present form of allegiance to the Commonwealth, such as the office of Governor-General. These are specially entrenched parts of the Constitution needing two-thirds and three-quarters affirmative votes in the Legislature to enable the Constitution to be changed. Is the hon. Member, therefore, not raising a problem which probably would not arise?

Mr. Pannell: This has occurred in other territories, when a campaign is started which causes people generally to want a republican Government. I am not criticising that, and I am not disputing that it would need a 75 per cent. majority in the House of Assembly in favour of a republican Government to make a change. All I say is that if that possibility is likely to arise and if there are elements in a country which is emerging towards independence who are strongly in favour of a republican form of Government that opportunity and option should be given to the country before we abandon control.
This concludes my remarks except to say that despite the criticisms which I have voiced I should also like to express


my good will to the new independent State of Trinidad and Tobago and I hope that it will be able to overcome its problems and become a worthy member of the Commonwealth of nations.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) concluded his remarks by expressing good will to the emerging new nation of Trinidad and Tobago. I am sure that he was quite sincere in that respect even though he prefaced those remarks by a certain amount of morbid foreboding. May I ask the hon. Member a simple question? What would he propose should have been done instead of the course which has been taken?

Mr. Pannell: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I said that probably what we were doing was inevitable. I excused myself for not expressing enthusiasm at the inevitability.

Mr. Sorensen: I appreciate the hon. Member's further explanation, but I should still like to know, going further back in time, what he would say would have been the right course at that juncture. However, I will leave it at that.
I am glad that my apprehension at the hon. Member's remarks was dissolved at the conclusion of his speech, and I am sure that all of us here, whatever our criticisms of the past may have been, or still may be, will agree that we cannot hope for an emerging new nation like this to set sail and navigate its course successfully without the best wishes on the part of all of us. I therefore earnestly hope that although this is an experiment and a great adventure, nevertheless it will be a great success.
Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) referred to the fact that there was much political discussion in the rum shops of Trinidad and he gave a parallel between that and discussions in our own homely "pubs". I have not had much experience of discussion in that atmosphere, but on the few occasions on which I have entered these historic hostelries I must say that I have not been over-impressed by the cogency of the political discussion. Rather, I

have been troubled by the diffuse and dissipatory nature of what I have heard.
I think that developments in Trinidad and Tobago have not been due so much to the forums to which reference has been made, but rather to the courageous experiment made by Dr. Williams some years ago. He is an extraordinary man, and I have great sympathy with him, because apparently he began his public career in Trinidad in much the same way as I began mine many years ago, by simply getting up and speaking in the open air.
I had the privilege of listening to Dr. Williams in the "University of Wood-ford Square". On that occasion, as on previous occasions, he supplied a vast amount of material to his listeners which took a long time to digest. Not only was his eloquence extensive in more senses than one, but it was also loaded with a tremendous amount of erudite matter which I would not have been able to analyse properly even in as long a time as he took to deliver it. I should like to pay tribute to his remarkable politically educational work, but we must not forget others as well.
There is Dr. Capildeo, to whom reference has already been made. There is the worthy and weighty citizen Mr. Gomes, and we must also not forget the significant figure of Mr. Leary Constantine, who was for many years in our midst but who went over there for a while and who, I am glad to say, is now so ably representing his people in the Metropolis here once more. These four names have been selected almost hazardlly from a variety of politicians and, indeed, statesmen.
I had the opportunity, when visiting Trinidad, to listen to a political convention. Indeed, I was asked to say a few words, which I did in a characteristically diplomatic and perhaps ambiguous fashion. My words none the less received substantial applause. As I watched the convention at work I was struck not only by the eloquence, but also by the ability— for I know that the two are not necessarily synonymous—of all those assembled there. Also, I was struck by the multiracial nature of the convention. It was symbolic of the Trinidad and Tobago that are now emerging— a microcosm almost of the world.
I noticed an absence of Caribs. I understand that there are a few remnants of this indigenous race still in Trinidad, but they were supplanted by other races, and although I know that Dr. Williams has from time to time criticised Britain severely for having introduced other races to that island, I would say, on the other hand, that the diffusion and dispersion of peoples is a characteristic of the whole human race the world over. This is due not merely to the pressure of imperialism, but to the driving instinct of many peoples to settle elsewhere than in their birthplace.
Anyhow, we have in Trinidad and Tobago this wondrous mixture of negroid people and perhaps Caribs, Chinese, Indians and elements of Spanish, French, English and Scottish. There they all are, and that is why, in particular, one hopes earnestly that Dr. Williams will be able to steer, with others, this new venture to a successful conclusion, and in a small way within its own limitations thus to offer an example to the world.
Dr. Williams and all who are associated with him start with certain economic advantages. Reference has been made more than once to the substantial economic resource of oil, but I am sure that we would all advise him not to put too much reliance on that predominant present element of the economy. So far as they can, I am sure the Trinidad Government will diversify that economy lest at some time there comes a change in the economic life of the world which adversely affects the predominance of that commodity. I believe there is a capacity amongst the peoples of Trinidad, educated as they have been to face economic facts, now to deal with their economic life soundly and wisely and to look far ahead.
There will be political difficulties. There may be side winds that blow from the near mainland of Venezuela. I hope earnestly that Dr. Williams and the men and women who are to be representatives of this small emerging nation will themselves know how to deal with what may be those embarrassing pressures from Venezuela or elsewhere.
We do not know positively that this venture will remain on the democratic

path. We know that with great optimism other communities have started off democratically, but have had to modify their democratic structure. They have had to embark later, I am sorry to say, on an authoritarian, although not necessarily a totalitarian, regime. I do not stand in criticism of them, because one does not know all the circumstances. What one can do, however, is to hope profoundly that here, at least, there will be no aberration or deviation, and that, instead, those who are to be responsible for these 800,000 people will do their utmost to see that the essence of democracy, if not the precise pattern that we have in this country, is preserved for all time. I hope so, for thus Trinidad and Tobago will serve a wider area than the Caribbean.
I trust, too, that in the course of time an association of the various small communities of the Caribbean will emerge. We all deplore the collapse of the last great venture, but I am certain that in course of time experience, expediency and imagination will compel these varying communities to find some appropriate association in the days to come. For that reason we shall not bemoan too much the abortive attempt that was made.
It is true that 800,000 is a very small community, but we have to deal with matters as they are. Therefore, I trust that the most powerful note which will be echoed from this House in Trinidad tomorrow when they read the Press will be one of confidence and hope—confidence that those who are now in charge of their destinies will be wise, balanced and far-seeing and will in that spirit see to it that they preserve not only their democratic structure, but integrate the various racial components into one national community; and hope that here at least in this area of the Caribbean the Trinidans and the Tobagans together will ensure that they show promise and good will to all the others who dwell in that part of our world.

5.6 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I should like to echo warmly the concluding sentences of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen).
Before I turn to some of the points raised in the debate, perhaps I should


clear up two or three misconceptions which have emerged from an extraordinarily well-informed debate. The first misconception was my own, which was that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) was going to end up on a discordant note, but he avoided that and we seem to be unanimous in our good will to this new independent country.
The next slight misconception arose on the question of dual citizenship. I know that we keep on bombarding the House with independence Bills, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Miss Vickers) will read Clause 2 (3) I think she will find that dual citizenship is clearly covered under paragraph (a) which states that a person whose father or grandfather is a United Kingdom descendant can hold citizenship both of Trinidad and of this country.

Miss Vickers: Does that include the mother?

Mr. Fraser: On the question of the mother and that of illegitimate children which she raised, I should like to cover those points in correspondence with her. To adjust the British Nationality Act would be a clumsy way of proceeding, and there can he and will be provision in the local constitution, as in the constitution of Jamaica, whereby if the people of Trinidad so request persons born illegitimately outside this country or another colony or Trinidad can be legitimised. This is the legal situation.
Lastly, there was the slight misconception on the part of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) regarding the Chaguarama Agreement. There were two stages in the negotiations. One was the negotiation between the United Kingdom and the United States regarding the basic agreement, and in addition there was a negotiation, with us acting as honest broker, between the United States and the Government of Trinidad. At this stage, when Trinidad is on the verge of independence, it would be rash of me to try to enter into any discussion on that point. It is far better left to the Governments of Trinidad and of the United States who will, I hope, satisfactorily work out whatever differences there may be on these points. I believe it is possible that there will emerge in Trinidad a successful multi-racial society which can

be an example to many others in the same sort of situation throughout the world. I believe that the accord between Dr. Williams and Dr. Capildeo, between Government and Opposition, which emerged from the recent conference is a fair portent of what can happen. Difficult though the situation could be, I think that we can permit ourselves some confidence.
Hon. Members have spoken about the part that Trinidad, under the exceptionally far-seeing leadership of Dr. Williams, can play in the Caribbean. The hon. Member for Northfield asked whether we would give a favourable wind to any suggestion of wider association. We as the British Government, of course, not only would welcome most warmly but would do everything we could to assist the building up through the Caribbean of trade and wider associations during the years to come.
In opening the debate, the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) spoke about the oil industry. It is not for me to argue with him about his views and the dissertation he gave us about whether it was a good thing that the industry should make profits. I think that it is better that the oil industry should be run on a profit-making rather than a loss-making basis, and it is vital that the oil industry should be international in conception rather than purely national in outlook. Dr. Williams and the Trinidad Government face considerable problems on this score. As many hon. Members have said, an oil economy is a dangerous one, and no one is more aware of this than Dr. Williams. Clearly, there is a chance of diversification, bringing forward plans for developing agriculture, for instance, even further than it has been developed already.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke also about safeguarding the interests of Trinidad in the E.E.C. We have been fortunate in Brussels that Trinidadian officials have been actually sitting with our people just before the talks there. The House will know also that Dr. Williams is tomorrow to see the Lord Privy Seal and have further discussions. At the Prime Ministers' Conference, Dr. Williams will be here as a Prime Minister. To add to the remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale, I am quite certain


that, whatever be the size of the island of Trinidad, in the Prime Ministers' Conference a man of the intellectual calibre of Dr. Williams will have more than a contribution to make.
As regards the aid settlement to which several references have been made, I as Under-Secretary of State have made myself perfectly clear on the subject of the C.D.C. I think that my thought reflects, perhaps rather like a moon, the views of those with greater influence and power. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and the House in saying that the sooner we can get an announcement on this and a clarification the better.
On the subject of aid, talks are going on in Trinidad, but I must remind the House of what I said when we discussed the question of aid to Jamaica. Whatever it might wish to do, the United Kingdom must be limited by its responsibilities to the infinitely poorer territories of the world. The hon. Member for Northfield said that there will be no C.D. and W. allocation to Trinidad. This is not correct. About million has been paid out over the past series of years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) struck what seems to me to be the most important note in the debate, that here in Trinidad, with its leaders and its people, we have a chance to show how a multiracial society, which is multiracial by its very nature, can by good will, by perseverance and by leadership be made to work.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House— [Mr. M. Hamilton.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ACTS OF PARLIAMENT NUMBERING AND CITATION BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1—(NUMBERING AND CITATION OF FUTURE ACTS.)

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "accordingly" and to insert:
by the name of the Sovereign followed by the calendar year and the chapter number".
Our object in putting the Amendment down is to seek clarification of what was said in the rather short debate we had when my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General introduced the Bill. What we seek to do by the Amendment—no doubt, I shall have expert advice later on whether it is efficient in fulfilling this purpose—is to keep the Sovereign's name in the numbers of Acts of Parliament. The Sovereign's name has been so included for centuries. I understand that it was there even before we had a system of numbering by Anno Domini, when the only way of referring to an Act was by reference to the regnal year.
I agree that the short description of the regnal year, which can be expressed in longhand, as it were, as the tenth year of our Lord King Edward III, for example, is rather confusing, and the citation which one may find in a book as, for instance, 1 Geo. 6, c. 8 or 1 Edw. 8, c. 12, does not readily convey exactly what the statute is about, nor is it easy to follow. The Amendment is designed to change that method so that the number would be, for instance, "Eliz. 2, 1963, c. 1", and so on.
I understand that the Sovereign's name will be found in many parts of the book of statutes, on the front cover, perhaps, of an Act of Parliament and in various other places, and I dare say that the object of the Amendment will be met to some extent in this way, the Sovereign's name being preserved in parts of the statutes and the volumes of them, but what I seek is clarification of exactly what the position will be.
I was a little alarmed by my hon. and learned Friend's closing words on Second Reading. If I remember aright, he said that the effect of this Bill would be
to convert the future volumes of statutes from Books of Kings to Books of Numbers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 1475.]
In principle, I do not prefer Books of Numbers to Books of Kings. In the Bible, I find the Book of Numbers much the less interesting book of the two. Moreover, the new method seems a rather soulless way of going about it.
I know that my hon. and learned Friend is not a dessicated calculating machine and he does not want to bring everything down to questions of number, but, if his words on Second Reading indicate the way in which he is starting off in his high office, in which, I know, he will improve his position as time goes on, I tremble to think of what he may do when he really gets his teeth into the business before him. By this Amendment, I seek to find out exactly what the position will be when the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: When the Bill received its Second Reading, I welcomed it without qualification because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has just said, it sought to remove the rather obscure method of citing the date on the name of Acts of Parliament and it proposed to revert to the system which applied in Scotland for many centuries prior to the Union of numbering Acts of Parliament in a simple and logical way by the calendar year and the chapter number. However, I had a hidden regret that the name of the Sovereign would be removed from the official Title of the Bill in question and, as the debate progressed, I became more and more sorry that I had not qualified what I had said. Ultimately my hon. Friends and I tabled this Amendment.
After the debate, I had a word with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who reminded me that in Scotland prior to the Union it was customary to name the Sovereign, the King as it usually was, before bringing in the calendar year, and I thought that a very good compromise which would please not only Scottish Members but English

Members as well who had regrets on this matter would be to introduce the name of the Sovereign as well as the calendar year.

Mr. William Ross: How does the hon. Gentleman expect to please us by drawing attention to Elizabeth II when only one Elizabeth has been Queen of Scotland?

Mr. Hendry: I take the point, but the hon. Gentleman will observe that the Amendment proposes to introduce the name of the Sovereign and not the title of the Sovereign.

Mr. Ross: That makes it worse.

Mr. Hendry: As I was about to say, every Act of Parliament begins:
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled".
What is properly called an Act of Parliament is an Act of the Sovereign in Parliament. We are apt to think of Parliament as the Lords and Commons, but the Sovereign is an essential part of any Act. An Act does not become law until the Sovereign's assent is indicated in the usual manner in another place. It is highly proper in the name of an Act of Parliament that the name of the Sovereign who has enacted it by giving his or her consent should be clearly stated.
On Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said that we were adopting a practice which has become customary throughout the English-speaking world. Undoubtedly people in the English-speaking world form a very important part of the world's population, but every country in the English-speaking world is slightly different from the others. I venture to suggest that this country is rather more different than most in that we are not a republic but have an ancient monarchy of which we are very proud and which is a very important part of our constitution. I suggest that, if for no other reason, it is right and proper that in naming the Acts of our Sovereign in Parliament the name of the Sovereign should appear in the official Short Title or in the official citation. For that reason, I have great pleasure in supporting, the Amendment and beg my right hon. and learned Friend to accept it.

The Solicitor-General (Sir John Hobson): It might be of assistance to the Committee if I explained in a little more detail than I did when moving the Second Reading exactly what are the consequences and effect of the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) and Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) for the moderation with which they have spoken to the Amendment, and for giving me the opportunity to explain in a little more detail exactly what will happen and haw much of the Sovereign's name will remain on Acts and Bills in future.
I would regard it as a matter of the greatest importance and regret if, in future, references in the authoritative editions of our legislative activities were wholly to omit the name of the Sovereign. But, of course, this is not so. All we are dealing with here is the short reference number Which normally appears on the top left hand corner of Bills and Acts of Parliament and the short references on the back of the bound volume of statutes which up to now have always related the references of Acts of Parliament to sessional years. Sessional years have, of course, always been referred to by regnal years.
Up to 1940 the statutes were always bound in volumes by sessions and it was, therefore, appropriate to refer to them by the Session of Parliament, which could only be described by the regnal year of the Sovereign. It was because sessions were so described up to that time and not because of the legislative part which the Sovereign took in our legislative procedure that the name of the Sovereign appeared in the references.
Since 1940, 22 years ago, the Statutes have always been bound in annual volumes. I have here the 1960 volume in which all the Statutes for the calendar year of 1960 are bound up together. This involves binding the Acts of parts of two different sessions, and a very complicated title is necessary on the back of it. It has to be described as
8 &amp; 9 Eliz. II. Chapters 10–69
and
9 Eliz. II, Chapters 1–6".
The latter part of 1960 was not the session of the ninth year of the reign of

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Since she has survived beyond the anniversary of her accession, it becomes the session of the ninth and tenth years of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
These complications are very difficult to understand, and it was therefore thought that, for simplicity of reference, it would be much easier to bind up the Statutes and to refer to them simply by their year and to call them the Statutes of 1960 and, within that volume, to refer to each Act by a chapter number, as at present, beginning with the first Act passed in the year and numbering the chapters throughout the year. The effect is that one will be able to refer to an Act of Parliament simply as "1960, Chapter 1", or as the case may be.
Normally, one refers to an Act by the Short Title. Acts like the Finance Act, and the Betting and Gaming Act are generally referred to in the House, in the courts and elsewhere by their official Short Title. But there are occasions when it is convenient to direct a reader to the volume and to the place in the volume by an easy system of reference. It is for this purpose that the numbering and citation of Acts is being altered.
The old style of referring to sessions by regnal years and the chapters of those sessions was little used except in courts, when it was desired to draw the attention of the judges to a particular volume of the Statutes or occasionally in legal documents and opinions. In future, when it is necessary for those few purposes to use what might be called the filing system of reference," it will be necessary to say no more than "1960, Chapter 2."
The Amendment proposes that, for the purpose of a short reference, one should add the name of the Sovereign and expand the example I gave to "Elizabeth II 1960 Chapter 2." I respectfully submit that, if one is trying to devise a short system of reference, it is wholly unnecessary to add words which everyone will imply in order to direct a reader to a particular volume and to a particular chapter number.
I should, however, like to make clear that, while that is the system for short and easy references and citations the name of the Sovereign will still be


recognised in the style in which we print and set out our Statutes. First, in the unbound Statutes and Acts of Parliament, the Royal Arms will appear on the front page, as they do at present, and, in addition, the name of the Sovereign will be added above the Royal Arms. In the volumes of 'the bound Statutes, the Sovereign's name will appear first on the spine of the bound volum2, where it at present appears with all the regnal years and reference numbers. This will be simplified and the name of the Sovereign alone will appear on the spine of the volume. In addition, on the title page of each volume of the statutes the sovereign's name will appear as it does at present. At the head of each Act within the volume the enacting words which have already been referred to will remain:
Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled
and so on. So at the head of each Act there will be the part played by the sovereign in the legislative Act referred to expressly.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Why is a statute necessary for this at all?

5.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that it arises on this Amendment. Of course, this is a matter which, to a large extent, concerns the Statute Law Committee, but it was thought that the system of numbering and citation, which is very ancient indeed, had become part of the custom and law of Parliament and that for that purpose it ought not to be changed without the authority of all the three parts of the legislative machinery, i.e., by the sovereign herself with the Lords and Commons together assembled and that, therefore, it was advisable that this custom and practice should be altered by Act of Parliament itself. Some may think it not wholly necessary, but it is far better to be sure than sorry, and it is for that reason it was decided that 'this should be done by Act of Parliament.
The actual lay-out of the heading of each Act and the title page of the volume is to be considered by the Statute Law Committee in the near

future, and any suggestions made in the course of this debate will, of course, be very acceptable and will certainly be carefully considered by the Committee.
It is not proposed that Bills should contain the sovereign's name because at that stage of the legislative procedure the sovereign has taken no part and, indeed, a Private Member's Bill might well be introduced that affected adversely the sovereign or it might be a Bill with which at that stage the sovereign would not wish to be connected. For that reason, it is not intended to include any reference to the sovereign's name on any Bills.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make this further explanation as to what is intended to be done and what will be the consequences of this Measure. I hope that in the light of that explanation my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing his Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) will take the advice of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General. I, too, was concerned about the change and realised the importance of it. Indeed, I spoke with considerable feeling on the subject on Second Reading of the Bill. I drew attention to the fact that, belatedly, we were doing something here once again for the United Kingdom and for English law which we had done a considerable time ago in regard to Scottish law. I think that the hon. Gentleman went too far when he said that this was the standard practice relating to Scottish law in ancient days. I think he will find it was more related to the clarification of Scottish law ordered by the House of Commons at the beginning of the century. The citation was done in this way with the sovereign's name followed by the calendar year and the chapter number.
The hon. Gentleman got himself into a difficulty when he said that we had not mentioned the actual Sovereign's name. Had he listened carefully to the hon. and learned Solicitor-General he would have had no doubt about what the Sovereign's name is. It is Elizabeth II, and certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and I welcome this dropping of the Sovereign's name. It is totally unnecessary. The Sovereign's name is there by


virtue of the fact that we have chosen hitherto to cite Acts of Parliament by the regnal year. That means the Sovereign's name followed by the year of the Sovereign's reign.
I think that from the point of view of dropping that, we can drop the one without the other and so we are left with the replacement of the calendar year and the chapter. It is perfectly simple. I think it should be welcomed by every Member of Parliament to know the year in which any Bill was passed whereas hitherto we have had to look up to find out what was the regna1 year. I am sure that both hon. Members opposite have had the experience of fumbling about from one volume to another before finally getting the one they want. I am sure that from the point of view of simplicity and the convenience of everyone it is a very desirable change. If we want to add anything, let us add something more informative.
I am deeply disappointed that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General did not take my advice, which was that if we must add something let us give to the legal fraternity and to Members of Parliament some information about the Bill and how it was handled in the House. I suggested that the title of every Bill dealt with under the Guillotine procedure should be followed by a large letter "G". I should have preferred that to this Amendment. I know that that is not the Amendment before us, but if we must have an Amendment, then that is the one I want.
This, to my mind, is an unnecessary Amendment and a quite unnecessary retention of the Sovereign's name, which is not particularly accurate when we remember that there are special Scottish Acts. There is the celebrated Town and Country Planning Act which started as a United Kingdom Measure, but which was so incomprehensive to the Scots that the House of Commons ordered it to be reprinted in Scottish form. If the hon. Gentleman opposite had been prepared to reprint the Sovereign's title in Scottish form we might have had some sympathy with his objective. The Post Office has already done this. So unpopular was the English domination of the citation of the Sovereign's name that the Post Office bowed to popular opinion. Anyone who looks will find

that on the pillar boxes in Scotland there is not "E.R. II" but just "E.R." No one has any doubt who is the Queen.
I think that, on the whole, the hon. and learned Solicitor-General is right and that for the convenience of every one concerned it is better that the Amendment, if it is not withdrawn, should be voted down. After all, we have only to look at this Bill to see that there is a reference to the monarch. It states:
Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows.
I think that this is enough of this archaic stuff without adding anything quite unnecessary. I am sure that no one will doubt that in 1962 the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty thereto referred was Elizabeth.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: This is a quaint Amendment. The Bill really arises out of the co-existence of three separate things— the first, the sessional year, the second the regnal year, and the third the calendar year. The calendar year has certain obvious conveniences for reference purposes, and the intention of the Bill is to shorten and simplify the method of reference.
I should like to take this opportunity, while on the Amendment, of congratulating the Government on much the best Bill that they have brought forward since they have been in office. There is nothing wrong with it for once, and I am sorry, just because it is such a good Bill, that it should have provoked yet another split in the Tory Party. I should have thought that it was rather small beer.
I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman has dropped these references to Books of Numbers and Books of Kings and has proceeded today direct to Revelations. That was surely the right method of dealing with the matter. There was a little preliminary revelation in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill. It made it perfectly clear what the Bill was doing.
I do not want to deprecate the Amendment too much. It is always interesting to have these revelations of the inner


mind of parts of the Tory Party and this was a remarkable instance. I listened with fascination to what was said on behalf of the Amendment and to the grounds on which it was opposed. I should find it difficult to support it. I hope that having said that, I need say no more about the Bill. I hope, however, that the Government will strut away pleased that at long last they have brought in a Bill which contains no errors and which makes extraordinarily little difference and that they have successfully suppressed the impending mutiny represented by the Amendment.

Mr. Kershaw: In view of the very full explanation given by my hon. and learned Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — PRE-PACKED FOODS (MARKING)

5.42 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Pre-Packed Food (Weights and Measures: Marking) (Amendment) Regulations 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 977), dated 9th May, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be annulled.
I say at once that we do not intend to press the Prayer to a Division. It does not call for a great deal of discussion. I am glad that it has come on rather early, not only because I dislike midnight discussions, but because this happy timing will allow the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who replies to the debate, to keep an engagement that we on this side as well as hon. Members opposite welcome—that of meeting a trade delegation from China.
As we understand the Regulations, we approve of them and support them, but our purpose in putting down the Prayer is twofold: first, to ask the hon. Gentleman to explain the Regulations in

simple terms which ordinary shoppers and shopkeepers can understand—and I am sure he will do that; and, secondly, to complain about the way that the Regulations are presented. I am equally sure that the hon. Gentleman will be sympathetic with regard to the complaint.
I understand that the Regulations have been introduced to clear up a legal ambiguity to which the Lord Chief Justice has drawn attention, the point being that it was not clear whether the legal validity of the Regulations which the Board of Trade has assumed for them was in line with the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, from which the Regulations derive. I have had difficulty in following the legal arguments, but I am sure that if the Lord Chief Justice is satisfied with the Regulations, we should all be grateful.
The point that we wish to raise is the need to make regulations under the Food and Drugs Act abundantly clear and to explain them to shoppers and shopkeepers in such a way that ordinary people can understand them. These Regulations and the original 1957 Regulations, which they amend, are designed to guarantee that in regard to certain foodstuffs the customer shall get the proper weights and grades for which she pays, and that any trader who tries to defraud his customers by putting false labels on certain packaged foods can be, and should be, prosecuted. These are Regulations for ordinary folk, who should be able to understand them.
In so far as the Regulations are designed for the purpose of protecting customers and consumers, we not only welcome them but. If I am in order in mentioning a point about the 1957 Regulations, we urge the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to carry on the good work and to ensure that the schedules embraced by the Regulations are so comprehensive that they not only cover all packaged foods which are being sold, but can be so worded that packaged foods that may come on to the market will be covered without our having to discuss frequently new amending Regulations.
I should probably be out of order in pursuing that point—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am glad to hear the


hon. Member observe that he probably would be out of order in pursuing the point further.

Mr. Darling: I do not intend to pursue it further, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
My point concerns clarification. The Explanatory Note to the Regulations, which is very brief, states that they will come into operation on a certain date and that they
provide for the application of certain provisions of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 and the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 in relation to proceedings for offences against the Pre-Packed Food (Weights and Measures: Marking) Regulations 1957".
It goes on to state that
The provisions applied relate to the defence of contravention due to the default of third parties, the defence of warranty and offences in connection with warranties.
I defy any layman to understand what that means.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Or lawyer.

Mr. Darling: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say that even lawyers cannot understand it.
The point which I emphasise is that when dealing with Regulations of this kind, which are intended for ordinary people and which specify the legal rights of shoppers when they go shopping, if it is impossible to express clearly what the Regulations mean in an Explanatory Note to Parliament, some arrangement should be made to give publicity to these legal rights, so that not only shoppers, but traders also—because the purpose of the Regulations is not only to protect the customer, but to protect reputable traders from unscrupulous competition—can understand their legal rights. I am sure that the Minister of State will agree.
I would be out of order if I went on to mention somehting else which I had in mind—that is, the need for a new Weights and Measures Bill. I therefore conclude these brief observations by expressing the hope that in future when we have Regulations of this kind, we will have either a proper Explanatory Note or, if that cannot be done, publicity will be given to the Regulations throughout the country so that people can understand them.

5.49 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Sir Keith Joseph): I apologise to the House for the state of my voice. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has stated the purpose of the Regulations clearly, but, in reply to his question I should like to expand on their purpose. Before doing so, perhaps I may say that I will certainly pass on to my right hon. Friends the points that the hon. Member has legitimately made on the wider issues.
These Regulations deal only with what, as the hon. Gentleman realised, is a very narrow point indeed. The fact is that, under the Food and Drugs Act, the Board of Trade had certain powers only to make Regulations of a certain sort under certain Sections. The Board of Trade exercised these powers in the 1957 Regulations, which are being amended by the Regulations now before the House.
The largest part of the 1957 Regulations—that is, Statutory Instrument 1880 —in fact, deal with the protection of the consumer, but paragraph 5 of the Regulations deals with the protection of the trader, and it so happens that the legal ambiguity which the Regulations now before the House are intended to cure occurred in connection with paragraph (5), which deals with the safeguards for the trader.
The legal ambiguity arises for this reason. Certain defences available to the trader if proceedings are taken against him under the Food and Drugs Act, and certain limitations on the defences available to the trader if proceedings are taken against him, were assumed in the Food and Drugs Act to be available to the trader if proceedings were taken against him under Regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act.
Advisedly, my right hon. Friends concerned with the Food and Drugs Act, and my right hon. Friend who laid Regulations 1880 of 1957 assumed that the particular defences available to the trader, and the limitations and definition of those defences, which are found in Section 113, Section 115 (2) and Section 116 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, would also be available and would apply to any proceedings taken against the trader under Regulations made under the


Food and Drugs Act. That was the general understanding when the 1957 Regulations were made.
In 1961, the Lord Chief Justice, in an obiter dicta, threw some doubt upon whether, in fact, these Sections and subsections did apply to proceedings taken under the Regulations. There was some inconvenience arising from that, and to clear up this inconvenience and after consultation with a wide range of interested parties, it was decided to introduce amending Regulations, which are those now before us—Statutory Instrument 977 of 1962—to lay down, without any ambiguity, that these three Sections, dealing with the defences and the limitations on the defences available to the trader under these Sections, apply to proceedings taken under Regulations as well as to proceedings taken under the main Act. This is the sole purpose of this Statutory Instrument, which, I think, has been generally welcomed.
It so happened that, since the decision to lay these amending Regulations was made, the Lord Chief Justice, in a later case, has thrown some doubt upon his first obiter dicta. The fact, therefore, that the law is still not finally decided upon this point makes these Regulations the more welcome to the trade. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied by my explanation, and by my assurance that I will pass on his wider comments, and will now withdraw the Prayer against them.

Mr. Darling: In view of the hon. Gentleman's very clear exposition, which is far more clear than the Explanatory Note to the Regulations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Sitting is suspended until seven o'clock.

Orders of the Day — INCOMES POLICY

7.0 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I beg to move,
That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on initiating a policy designed to control inflation and to stabilise prices but calls on the Government to expound the policy with greater clarity; regrets that its application has not been uniform throughout the public and private sectors, and that private industry has not always been stimulated sufficiently to co-operate; recognises that any policy applicable only to the public sector would be unfair to public servants and could not be indefinitely maintained; and calls on the Government to announce its future policy for an overall fair plan with a positive outline as to its future intentions.

Mr. Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that I propose to call the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and other hon. Members, should it be desired to move it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I want to make it clear that I realise that it would be out of order to challenge in any way your decision on which Amendment should be called, Mr. Speaker, but if I understand correctly the Standing Orders and the Parliamentary procedures as laid down in Erskine May, it is permissible to ask Mr. Speaker to be good enough to explain the basis on which he has selected a certain Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I am under any obligation to do so, but as a matter of courtesy to the hon. Member I can tell him that neither Amendment materially narrows the scope of debate, so that the hon. Member and all other hon. Members concerned can express their views in the debate. Of the two Amendments tabled, I preferred the latter.

Dame Irene Ward: I understand that Burke made a statement to the effect that all that was necessary far evil to triumph was for good men to do nothing. If he had been here today he might have been moved to add that, in the doing, action should be taken which is bath fair and based on common sense. The House may recall that those words were used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the weekend before last,


when he was speaking in the country, and it occurred to me that, having made that announcement, he then put on his Nelson hat, picked up a couple of telescopes, applied them to both eyes and closed his eyes tightly—although he is no doubt anxious that this incomes policy should be operated with fairness and common sense, and that is the basis on which I have moved the Motion.
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his policy last July I believe it commended itself to the country as a whole, not only to the private sector but also to people of good will who recognise that one of the great threats to our economic stability and our ability to meet our world commitments is inflation. Many people welcomed the idea behind my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. Without its being known to the participants, I have listened to a conversation between railwaymen, Who are not notoriously well paid, in which they have expressed the view that if only the Government could bring prices down it would be much more welcome than an increase in wages. I believe that to be profoundly true.
There was a large measure of support for the Chancellor's policy among thinking trade unionists, who recognised the strength of the argument which my right hon. and learned Friend put forward last July. It is regrettable that, that policy having been initiated, we seem to have come to a dead end, and that the pay pause, which was started in the public sector, and the subsequent incomes policy, which has no limit in respect of policy announcements, have caused great anxiety and grievance among many people, who feel that the new policy, which was a very sound one, has not materialised.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will give us a clear explanation exactly how successful the pay pause, and then the initial stages of the incomes policy, have been. I notice that my right hon. and learned Friend continually states that the pay pause has been a great success, but only within the last few days the information given out from the financial sphere has been considerably disquieting. There has been a rise in the cost of living; the deficit in our

national affairs has increased; we have increased our expenditure, and the increase in wages which has occurred has not met the rise in the cost of living, in spite of the pay pause and the incomes policy. As a result, not only is the standard of living less good today but the position of those on retirement pensions and small fixed incomes has deteriorated. I hope that my hon. Friend will carefully analyse the reasons which enable my right hon. and learned Friend continually to state that the pay pause has been a success—from which I gather that he means that it has helped considerably in strengthening the economy.
I recognise with gratitude and appreciation that what my right hon. and learned Friend did last July was very valuable in strengthening sterling and improving our competitive position, but I suspect that it was not the pay pause, followed by the dehydrated incomes policy Which was mainly responsible for this effect; I believe that this was due to other measures taken by my right hon. and learned Friend, and also to difficulties which many of our competitors got into last year.
When my right hon. and learned Friend talks about the rise in the cost of living I hope that he will not make the mistake of equating the price of potatoes with the price of a ton of coal. I place no reliance on the cost-of-living index. I try to represent ordinary men and women.
There are four inescapable items of expenditure in the budget of the people where there have been increases which I should like to emphasise. There is the rise in rents, the rise in rates, the rise in heating of all kinds and the rise in transport costs. When arguing about the rise in the cost of living it is not effective, nor is it fair, to try to say that although there may be a seasonal rise in the price of vegetables, when potatoes are so excessively costly, as they are at present, that that will disappear and then the cost of living will be back to a steady figure.
If I understand correctly, my right hon. and learned Friend has already given a guarantee that if we pursue this incomes policy in the right way, we can look forward to a further stable price level in the future. That does not in the least affect the very serious position of


practically the whole of the community caused by the acute rise in rents, the acute rise in rates, the acute rise in heating costs and the acute rise in transport charges. I very much regret that when he made his statement last year my right hon. and learned Friend did not deal with this matter very clearly.
You, Mr. Speaker, have said that you propose to call the second Amendment on the Order Paper, and I should like to congratulate the Opposition on having staged quite a good operation. I always enjoy a well-staged operation in a political fight, even if it is against me or my Government. But I do not wish my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to be moved from answering the questions on my Motion. The Amendment is, of course, designed to destroy the Government, whereas my Motion is designed to improve the Government. I think that most people in the country will agree with me when I say that destruction is much easier to achieve than improvement. So I say to my hon. Friend, "Please do not take the easy way out and spend all your time answering the Amendment, because it is much more important to the country that we should get the answers to the questions embodied in my Motion". I am very pleased to see that there are so many Ministers sitting on the Government Front Bench.
When my right hon. Friend introduced his new policy last year I very much regretted two things. If it had been decided to impose a discriminatory policy—because that is what it was—on any section of the community, particularly if it affected those for whom the Government have a responsibility, I think that it would have been far better to have announced that we proposed to impose a special unpleasant obligation on them. I am sure that the Treasury Ministers and the Government as a whole will support me when I assert that in this country we have first-class public employees.
No country in the world has better public employees, and I deplore the somewhat laconic statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend. He did not say that we were imposing this obligation. He did not pay any tribute to those who would have to bear the first heat and burden. If he wanted to

lead the country, as I am sure he did, it would have been much better if he had grasped that nettle. I think that the people in the public sector realise and are grateful for the fact that at least they have security so long as this country is financially sound and able to meet its obligations.
I regret that my right hon. and learned Friend made this very laconic statement. I am sorry that he did not say that we were asking the public sector to face a very unpleasant few months until we saw whether the private sector was proposing to respond to his policy. Far be it from me to make any observations about how I conduct my political campaigns. But when fighting a battle, if I have anything which stands against me—perhaps not through my own fault, perhaps because of the actions of the Government—I always bring it out at a very early stage. By the end of the day I know that I shall have been able to get my case across. It would have been much wiser and fairer if my right hon. and learned Friend had said that we were going to behave badly to the public sector but that we were asking them to give a lead. If my right hon. and learned Friend reads tile reports of what happened in 1931 he will note the magnificent response of the public sector to the impositions put upon them at that time. I have always been grateful for that. But my right hon. and learned Friend did not take the opportunity afforded to him, and that is one reason why I am moving this Motion.
I wish to discuss what Government spokesmen have been saying in this matter. I feel anxious, because it has become perfectly obvious that when my right hon. and learned Friend embarked on this policy it had not been thought out in any great detail. That I consider regrettable and deplorable. I have mentioned my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and said that he expected that this policy would be based on facts, figures and common sense. I am bound to say that I have not found many examples of that.
I wish to mention now what was written on 25th June—it is very up to date—by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it right to emphasise that it is nearly a year since we embarked


on this policy and Ministers of the Crown have made some utterances—anyone can make utterances—but there is no meat behind the utterances. I wish to draw attention to a letter written to an organisation called "Coppso"—that is the Conference of Public and Professional Servants. Quite naturally—I do not blame them—the public servants have linked themselves together to look after the interests of the public sector, as I am afraid that they do not feel that they have been very correctly or properly served by the Government or by my right hon. and learned Friend.
The general secretary of this organisation is Sir Ronald Gould. My right hon. and learned Friend wrote that he had said:
We have no intention of seeking to keep a fixed, immovable, petrified relationship between the rewards for various sections of the community.…
My right hon. and learned Friend also said in the letter:
I went on to accept the need for the re-examination of pay and salary structures in certain cases such as that of the nurses.
In that letter there is no mention even of the "guiding light". We have not yet heard exactly what is meant by that. In any event, I do not think that the organisation concerned will be very satisfied with that letter. But I always find my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tries to be helpful and I like him very much better as a man than I do as a Chancellor. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been a little more guarded. He has made one or two statements about trying to meet the difficulties of some of the people who are employed in the public sector but he has not committed himself to paper in that way.
Last weekend, however, the Leader of the House made a speech. He said that to find an answer to
whether the policy should proceed by words or exhortations alone, or whether the overriding importance of this issue demands a more fundamental and a different approach
was the main challenge to the Government on the home front. I could not agree with my right hon. Friend more. It was also the main challenge
to our right to the confidence of the country,
and he said,
We shall not fail.

The Leader of the House puts it in a much more picturesque way because he is a politician. I do not really put the Chancellor in that category. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think I could probably deal more easily with the Chancellor than with the Leader of the House because I am not very susceptible to flowing words. It is very easy to make speeches. It is not the making of speeches that is the difficulty, it is the redeeming of pledges, and I am anxious to have the pledges redeemed.
In any event, that is what the Leader of the House said only last Saturday, and he went on to say, and it filled me with alarm, that the Government were now starting a series of studies, presumably on how we shall deal with the public and private sectors. I think it is fair to say, because I really believe in my Government, that they are now going to try to see that the private sector is brought to play its part more fully in relation to the public sector. I assume that that is what my right hon. Friend meant, but he went on to say that this series of studies would probably last into the autumn. I presume that in the autumn, with any luck, we shall hear exactly what the Government's attitude is towards the future of the incomes policy.
I know very well that as a back bencher I am only entitled to a speech today from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I have had hard things to say about him, but I recognise that he has a very brilliant brain and that he is a man of integrity. I am glad that he is to reply to my Motion but I want him to interpret what the Leader of the House has already said in the country. I have been getting about a good deal since I drew up the Motion and I want to know whether when the Chancellor of the Exchequer embarked upon this policy he had not made up his mind what would happen if the private sector did not co-operate fully with the public sector. If so, it was very bad planning indeed.
We are not entitled to ask the public sector to bear burdens, a great many of which are most unfair, unless we have a complete plan of the direction in which we are going. Since the Chancellor is to have this series of studies undertaken, I do not suppose that the Financial Secretary will be able to tell me much


about this, but it is only right, in the interests of the country as a whole and particularly of the public sector, that we should know to what these studies will he directed. I should be very disappointed if my hon. Friend fails to deal with this problem, which must be faced.
I say again that I do not think that any Government are entitled to embark on perhaps one of the most important policies of the century, that is to say, the restraining of expenditure in advance of production, without having thought out in what direction they are going. The Financial Secretary, of course, will make a very clever speech. He always does. Sometimes he has to make such clever speeches that I am sure his heart must disagree with them even if his head supports them. I hope that we shall have some knowledge of what the Leader of the House meant on Saturday. I recommend to my right hon. Friend that it would be wiser if he did not make speeches in future unless we know what the policy is.
I want to go into detail on some of the problems of the public sector, because they have not been put adequately to the House or to the country. Firstly I should like to deal with the probation service, which is very important. I want to say to the Financial Secretary, and I know that the Chancellor will take note of it, that nobody seems to have recognised that the medical laboratory technicians, who are the responsibility of the Minister of Health, put in a claim long after the appropriate day in July and their claim was met.
I am not disagreeing with that, since I do not know anything about medical laboratory technicians, but when the question was raised the answer was given, I expect by the Minister of Health, that these technicians were engaged on a job comparison and that was why their application was not put in at the right date. This was counted in their favour and they were given their increase out of date, so to speak.
I would say to the Financial Secretary that the nurses and the professions supplementary to medicine have been making tremendous efforts towards having a job comparison, which is exactly

what they want, but they have not been allowed to have it. One realises that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary have such burdens to bear that one would not expect them to read every detail of every paper or even every one of the letters I send to them, which are very numerous, but I cannot understand, in the general policy, how one small group, however worthy, should be able to have their claim settled when others have failed.
The probation service had its position looked at by a Committee which was set up in 1959. The present Government do not set up committees lightly. Whenever I ask for a committee to be set up—and I have asked for a few—I am always told that the objection to doing so is that it involves more expenditure and therefore the Government do not set up committees if possible. I know that Governments change their minds, as the wind changes unexpectedly, but I am assuming that when the Government set up the Morison Committee to examine the probation service they recognised that the position of this service required examination.
Summarising the conclusions of that Committee, it said that this great social service is
desirable on social and economic grounds…Current salaries have not enabled the service to be maintained in size or quality at the necessary level of efficiency and substantial salary increases must be made.
That Committee was appointed on 27th May, 1959. If the medical laboratory technicians can get their case put forward because of necessity, I cannot see why the probation service has to be caught by the guiding light when a committee has been examining that service all these years and has come to a definite conclusion.

Mr. Richard Marsh: Would the hon. Lady not agree that the position is made even more farcical by the fact that the medical laboratory technicians' increase, which was granted despite the guiding light, totalled in some parts of the scale 47½ per cent.?

Dame Irene Ward: Yes. I did not want to rub it in too much. I regard this debate as "all in" for the nation, so I say "Thank you very much" to the hon. Member for that observation.
If we tell the medical laboratory technicians that the job comparison put them in a special category, it can surely be argued that the probation service, after an examination for all those years because their case was so urgent, should also have had the Committee's recommendations accepted without getting involved in this guiding light.
I can only think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not fought hard enough in the Cabinet. I should like very much to get inside that Cabinet. We know from the service which my right hon. Friend has rendered and from his tradition, that he is tremendously interested in these matters. The case could not have been put to the Cabinet. At any rate, I think the probation service has been given a very raw deal, and I am not in the least impressed with the guiding light policy in that case.
I now want to say something about the hospital almoners. I have had a lot of correspondence with my right hon. and learned Friend on this subject. Occasionally when we disagree—and he usually disagrees with what I write—I wonder whether I have been wrong, because I often am wrong. But I always take the trouble to get all the evidence and all the papers that concern the case. I embarked upon the case of the hospital almoners and psychiatric social workers and the award that was made to them by the Industrial Court. These people are regarded as a very important part of the community. My right hon. and learned Friend sent the Treasury economic adviser to state the case for the national interest before the Industrial Court. In spite of that, the Industrial Court awarded between 14 per cent. and 15 per cent. to the hospital almoners and psychiatric social workers.
It is ridiculous that psychiatric social workers inside the National Health Service, who have had more training than psychiatric social workers in local authority service, should be paid less than those in Government service. No one, not even the Treasury Bench, could agree that that was right. But, of course, this group of people are so dedicated and they have such a feeling of vocation that they do not fight for themselves. What makes me so angry is that the Treasury Bench do not fight for them.

I have never believed that one should have to fight to get a just reward. That is not the way to run a civilised country. I do not think that if we suddenly find that we are short of police or Army doctors, and so forth, we should immediately make the conditions of pay and service so attractive that everybody will rush in, because a lot of undesirable people would then apply.
Surely the right thing to do is to look at the qualifications. I say to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that it is quite ridiculous to bump up education in this country and improve people's qualifications if, when they have improved qualifications, they get less pay than if they had no qualifications. It is like living in Alice in Wonderland, and I should not like to live in Alice in Wonderland. Nor do I think hospital almoners want to do so.
Anyway, that was the position. These people got an award from the Industrial Court. It is frightful that these people, who have been serving the community for so long, have been underpaid. Then along comes the guiding light. Thank God for the President of the Industrial Court. Unfortunately, I have never met him, but he is one of the few men in public office recently who have spoken in human terms that can be understood, who have spoken in terms of common sense and fairness, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred before he closed his eyes while gazing through those telescopes of his.
I thought it was absolutely essential to get the minutes of evidence given before the Industrial Court on the hospital almoners and psychiatric social workers. It was suggested to me today, by someone who shall be nameless, that it was really rather odd that I should manage to get hold of these minutes of evidence because I was not supposed to have seen them. They are not marked "confidential". In my view, there is in public life today far too much marking of things as confidential, a practice which, I believe, covers up many inequalities and injustices which never see the light of day. Moreover, neither the country nor the House of Commons would ever tolerate secret courts. I am very glad that I have got hold of the minutes of evidence which was given to the Industrial Court and, in reading them, I have


been delighted by the approach of the President of the Industrial Court to to these problems.
I have brought the minutes of evidence here. They cover 84 pages. I do not propose to read them, although I have noted several extracts which are very interesting. I shall quote certain extracts but go no further than that. However, I say to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that I hope that he will publish as a White Paper the evidence which was given on behalf of the hospital almoners and the psychiatric social workers to the Industrial Court. If we are to embark upon a policy of income restraint, however it may develop, and if we are interested in the working of the Whitley machinery and the working of arbitration and of industrial courts of one kind and another, it is very important that Members of Parliament should see the evidence which was given on that occasion. I think that they will get a shock when they do.
The first passage to which I draw attention is on page 60 of the minutes of evidence. I shall give the numbers of the pages on which there are matters of particular interest so that, when the document is made available, as I am sure it will be, hon. Members will have the references. On page 60 are recorded these words by the President addressed to the spokesman of the management side:
Is it in the national interest to go right against the ordinary interests of fair play?
That just suits me down to the ground. I do not think that it is in the national interest, and I am very surprised that Treasury Ministers should have instructed the spokesman of the management side as they did. I shall not give his answer because it is my purpose to attack Ministers.
On page 62 a very interesting little episode is referred to. On the instructions of the Minister of Health, an adjournment of the sitting of the Whitley Council was sought on 16th January. The adjournment had to take place because the Minister had not instructed the management side. Subsequently, of course, it transpired that the Cabinet was discussing its incomes policy and, after the sitting had been put off for that day, the next day the Cabinet had decided about its incomes policy and so the hospital almoners and the psychiatric

workers were caught in the incomes policy net, the guiding light. I call that jiggery-pokery, and I do not like it at all.
Also, there was an extraordinary message which the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Health had given, on the Minister's instructions, in which he said that the Cabinet had not been able to agree the proposals for hospital almoners which had been put up by the Minister of Health. No one knows what the proposals were, but, so far as I can judge from the general evidence which was given, they were better than the guiding light policy any way. I do not think that that was a very good thing to do.
The hospital almoners had been asking for months for a hearing at the Whitley Council and they had always been put off by the management side saying that it was not ready, that it had not received instructions from the Minister. Of course, this game can be played ad infinitum, but it is not the sort of game I like to play. It would be just as well to have these minutes of evidence published in a White Paper so that everyone can see what was put before the Industrial Court.
There are various other pages of note. On page 66, there is recorded a discussion of the salary increases given to the medical laboratory technicians. I have already dealt with that matter. Those increases come into effect on 1st April, but they are not subject to the guiding light.
On page 67, the President of the Court is recorded as saying to the leader of the management side:
It rather looks as though, at the time that pay pause was introduced, the Treasury did not know what the next stage was going to be.
That is exactly what I feel and what a lot of people feel. As I say, the President of the Industrial Court is used to all this sort of matter, a very informed and enlightened person, and that is the opinion which he held. I am sure that he was right. The other pages to which, I suggest, people should turn are pages 69, 70, 79, 82 and 83.
On page 83 it is recorded that the economic adviser to the Treasury was unable to explain why the pay of doctors in the Forces had jumped the queue. I do not say that the increases


were not absolutely essential. I am sure that what was done was right, but, again, the Minister of Defence is, I believe, very powerful in the Cabinet, and I am glad that he is because I have a very great admiration for the Minister of Defence. However, when the Leader of the staff side asked the economic adviser to the Treasury whether precedents could be quoted where the pay pause had been breached or the guiding light ignored, he said that he had no knowledge. When he was asked what information he had to give about the breach in regard to doctors in the Forces, he could give no information there either. I do not want to break the tradition. I know that the economic adviser to the Treasury was acting on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, surely, if the staff side addresses a question of that kind to a distinguished Treasury official, he ought to have the information. It is quite ridiculous that he had not. I thought that it was a nice piece of irony that the leader of the staff side should say that he thought that the economic adviser to the Treasury, had answered to the best of his ability, but, on that basis, his ability was not very great. If I had been there, I could have added something to that.
The trouble is that all these people engaged in negotiations have to watch their step. One thing I took great exception to was this. When the nurses decided to go to arbitration, the Minister of Health said that if they had gone earlier they would have spared embarrassment to those who had the welfare of nurses at heart. That was not a very good thing to say. The nurses reacted, and I am not surprised that they did.
In all this machinery, there is very little opportunity for the staff side people to tell either the Chancellor or the advisers to the Treasury what they think. This is a great pity, and it is one of the reason why I regard it as imperative that the House should have an opportunity of seeing the way the management side put the case for the Government Department concerned. I did not think that, in the case of the Industrial Court evidence, the management side of the Government came out very well. That, of course, means that the Government did not come out very well, which is what I think.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: We appreciate what the hon. Lady has been saying about the need to treat public servants decently, but is not she aware that in her last few remarks she has been doing just the opposite in respect of a tried and trusted public servant? She should be attacking the Government on whose instructions he was operating.

Dame Irene Ward: That is exactly what I am saying. I said I knew that the management side was acting on behalf of the Government and that it was putting forward the Government's case. But I think that it would be in the public and national interest if the case presented by the management side at the Whitley Council was re-examined because I do not think that hon. Members, from reading the evidence, would be satisfied that the instructions given by the Government to the management side were right. That is my opinion, and I think it right that I should express it. I take full responsibility for expressing it. Of course, the management side must do what the Government tells it to do, but I think it very extraordinary that the Treasury Ministers did not brief their economic adviser on why the pay pause had been breached in respect of the Army doctors.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): Since the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) has raised the point, perhaps I can deal with it now. The deputy head of the economic side was acting as an expert witness on the Government's incomes policy generally. With respect, I do not think there is any reason why he should have been an expert on the particular circumstances of the increases given to medical officers in the Armed Forces. I think that what my hon. Friend said was unfair.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank my hon. Friend very much for that, but I disagree with him because there cannot have been a breach without the Cabinet knowing about it nor without the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreeing to it. If that is so, then I think that the economic adviser should have been briefed before he went to the meeting so that he could deal with the Government's case.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it perfectly plain by a statement in the House that he was going to ask the Industrial Court to ensure that the national interest was considered, and I do not think that anyone would disagree that the national interest, so far as the Treasury saw it, was considered. I do not think that the President of the Industrial Court always agreed with what was said, but it is fair to say, I think, that he said that the economic adviser had put the case very clearly. But I do not think it right that the nurses and those in professions supplementary to medicine, having been told that nothing could be done about them, should get up one morning and read in the newspapers that the Army doctors had been given a large increase because we must have doctors in the Army.
My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary should put himself in the place of ordinary people, not in the place of Ministers in the Treasury. That is what I feel, and if I had thought that the Treasury official was not going to be in a position to answer certain questions then I, for one, would not have been agreeable to his going before the Industrial Court to argue in the national interest. I might have thought that it was in the national interest that the Army doctors' case should be breached. It is these divisions of opinion which drive one dotty.
May I give one final picture and then wind up because I am looking forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say. Many hon. Members, no doubt, have done jigsaw puzzles. As I see it, here is a jigsaw puzzle with a beautiful ship, the ship of State, such as one which might have been built on the Tyne, forging a way through rough economic seas. Of course, the captain is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, as it is the flagship, the admiral is, of course, the Prime Minister. First, the jigsaw puzzle is opened and all the pieces fall out in a jumble on the table in the captain's dining room. The first thing which the captain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, does is to fit in the easiest bits. Anyone who has done jigsaw puzzles knows that, first, one picks out the edges, which are the easiest pieces of the whole puzzle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer picked out all the edges and carefully put them round the out-

side of the puzzle so that they formed a frame. Then he thought that he would go off and do something else, and he left other people to get on with fitting the pieces in the middle.
Then my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, who, as I have said, is a powerful character—I have a great admiration for him because he is both tough and sympathetic, and I like men like that—picks out some pieces and, as he is very quick in action, fills in his little corner and gets his way. Then along comes the Home Secretary, who is not quite as clever. I suppose that his mind was on African problems and not on home problems, and since the ship of State had nothing to do with African problems with which his mind was filled, he let the puzzle go by default and did not fit in any pieces.
Then comes the Minister of Health. He was colour-blind. He fitted the pieces in quickly enough, but he put them in upside down, so that when the jigsaw puzzle was completed the beautiful ship was spoiled because there were all these brown pieces fitted in. This spoiled the whole pattern.
Here I should like to refer to what The Times said on 13th June. I know that my Government do not particularly like references to The Times, but sometimes it carries a very good leader. On 13th June it said exactly what I believe is true and what I have embodied in the Motion. It is a great pity that Her Majesty's Government, having clearly seen how essential it was that this country should cease to spend more than its productive capacity could carry, did not use the time between the announcement of the pay pause and the introduction of the incomes policy to fill in all the details. That is my complaint against the Government.
May I once again say what I have said on several occasions. I get cold feet when I think about "Neddy". There is discussion between industrialists and trade unionists on that Council without a single professional white-collar worker being represented on it. In addition, there is no one on it who understands about shopping. Men do not understand about shopping. If a question were asked about the price of potatoes, nobody on the Council would be able to say, "One can economise and


do without potatoes but one cannot do without heating, paying the rent or paying the rates". My complaint against the Minister of Health is that he is so obstinate that, although the whole experienced world puts its point of view to him, it does not make the slightest difference. That, I think, is most regrettable.
I hope that I have not given my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary too much to answer, but if we are to have this incomes policy right—and it is essential in the national interest that it should get right—we want some forward thinking and a definite declaration of policy by Her Majesty's Government that will be fair to the country, both to the public sector and to the private sector. This operation should be undertaken as a great national effort under real leadership and not in this piecemeal way which has caused so much trouble and distress.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for reading the Motion in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), because it is time that we got some information about what the discussion is about. We have listened to a remarkable speech. The hon. Lady must be suffering from the loneliness of the long-distance plodder. We have heard her talking with subdued passion for 61 minutes about fair shares, and the only thing which emerges with clarity is that the hon. Lady is no believer in fair shares for participants in the debate.

Dame Irene Ward: It is my debate.

Mr. Hale: I will not permit any interruption. If the hon. Lady shouts, I will simply shout louder.
I add this too, and clearly. The hon. Lady has not told us what her views are about equal pay in relation to the pay pause. She has not said a word about profits in relation to inflation. She has not made a single observation about the economic plan that she desires or given us any information of what it is about. I am tempted to recall another legal story of the county court judge who rebuked a young counsel for repetitive-

ness. "Mr. Jones, you have said that before", he remarked. Mr. Jones replied, "I am very sorry, my Lord. I do not remember it." "I am not surprised", said the judge, "it was a very, very long time ago."
A story is told of His late Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, son of George III and brother of George IV, known to history by the delightful title of the "People's Duke", that in his later years he acquired an unfortunate habit of talking aloud and making comments on proceedings whilst they were in progress. Such things happen, of course, in the House of Commons. The reported occasion occurred in church while the preacher elaborated in detail the importance of the Ten Commandments. The recorded observations are that when the preacher said, "Thou shalt not kill", the Duke observed, "Yes, yes, quite right, but by brother Ernest did". When the preacher came later to the point, "Thou shalt not commit adultery", the Duke said, "Yes, yes, quite right, very proper but damned difficult".

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member will, I think, find that it was the Duke of Cambridge, the younger son of George III.

Mr. Hale: I will give the hon. Gentleman my reference. He will find the story related by the Hon. W. G. E. Russell, a direct descendant of Lord John Russell, who spoke with authority about contemporary affairs. The story might, of course, have been related to somebody else.

Sir E. Boyle: My reference is Roger Fulford's book, Royal Dukes.

Mr. Hale: The Financial Secretary is trying to divert the story of some long dead notable instead of applying it, as I wish to do, to the Prime Minister's method of approaching policy. Everything is "Yes, yes, quite right. We must do something, but damned difficult". Constantly, we visualise the Prime Minister on the seashore looking at the waves and feeling that "Something attempted, something done, must earn a night's repose". He stretches out a stately and elegant foot tentatively towards the water, withdrawing it from time to time, pushing it out again and saying, "Some time I must take the plunge". Finally, one of his back


benchers comes from behind, shoves him in the sea and three months later we are treated to photographs of the Prime Minister receiving the award for being the most daring swimmer of the year. That is what has been going on.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth referred to the probation officers. The Government, under pressure, decided to appoint a Royal Commission on the Police, of which I was a member. Then, under alleged pressure, they suddenly bunged on us the question of pay, although we were completely incompetent to deal with pay. None of us was an economist in that sense. We were appointed to deal with questions of liberty, most of which were later taken out of our terms of reference. We tried to consider the position of the police forces. There was discussion on how these things would be done. Were they to be done in relation to other people's wages, and how does one evaluate them in relation to social value? There was no form of work with which a fair comparison could be made. We described them finally as sui generis and had to consider the position largely in vacuo, perhaps having some reference to the sort of priority which the police had possessed in the past in relation to workers' wages as one of the tests to apply; but there were not many tests to apply.
The curious thing is that probation officers were the nearest one could get to people who were performing that kind of work of quasi-judicial responsibility in a legal atmosphere. We made a recommendation which was accepted, and we made a recommendation a month or two before the pay pause slipped out by chance from some injudicious observation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have begun to think that he was probably a better Foreign Secretary than I thought.
We made recommendations which involved something like a 33⅓ per cent. increase for the man on the beat. They were accepted. Then we came to this principle in relation to probation officers, who surely are among the worst-paid people we know, that a length of time should be imposed upon them.

The Government have not even had the strength to govern. The real answer about the pay pause and what has happened is that people who work for a vocation and are not prepared to take industrial action have been grossly and wickedly victimised, while people who have made threats have been placated.
In the middle of it all, the Government announced increases of pay for the Armed Forces, who at one time were the worst-paid people in the world.

Mr. Jack Jones: They have waited long enough.

Mr. Hale: No; they have had many increases since. I recall that my pay was 14s. a week when I enlisted in 1939. Seven shillings was knocked off for the missus plus a bob in case I got in debt, and I paid 4s. for my eldest daughter and 3s. for my son. There have been increases since, and I do not begrudge them.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth initiated what was to be an economic debate. The hon. Lady wants an economic plan. Is she in favour of restriction of profits? She did not tell us. She had 60 minutes in which to do so. Does she mean that she would restrict the workers' wages alone? Is she in favour of equal pay?
We had a debate a few days ago on the textile industry. The textile worker has always been worst paid of all skilled workers. The margin between the male worker and the woman worker is wider than in almost any other industry. The women are terribly badly off. We had a debate in which the Government said in terms of economic policy that the textile workers must not have any increase because a pay pause was in progress. The textile worker must, so they say, be persuaded to agree to three shifts a day because they have to compete with people on the Continent.
I picked up a memorandum from the French cotton industry, which has very distinct views about it. It says that the Lancashire industry is a subsidised industry. Of course, it was subsidised on the basis of capital, and there was to be some compensation for the workers, but they had been swindled out of most of it. The French cotton


industry publication, Industrie Cotonnière Française, for February, 1962, says:
It will be necessary for the U.K. to follow the rules of the Treaty of Rome concerning harmonisation in the realm of wages and working conditions. At present the English social security system weighs less heavily on production costs than the French system and equal wages for men and women do not apply in England. This is particularly important in the textile industry.
What has the hon. Lady to say about that? Are we going to establish equal pay by reducing the wages of men? Is that the proposition? Or how do we increase our competitiveness in textiles under the Treaty of Rome by at once increasing women's wages to an equality basis, as they say we must? None of these are problems on which the Government have anything to say.
The hon. Lady's Motion does not use the word "planning" at all. We know that it is a naughty word on the Conservative side of the House and that it used to rank with "Co-op" and things like that. They have to consider whether they want any planning at all. We have got a fantastic situation over the last few years, and there is not a single proposition which has been made by this Government in any sphere or field which they have not contradicted twice over. In relation to Tynemouth, two years ago we were debating a controversial Bill. The programme then was to build big ships in English ports to provide wages and employment and re-create the shipbuilding industry, and they now propose to build little ships in foreign ports and to pay subsidies on them.
I never profess to understand finance. I claim that I am rather in advance of most hon. Members of this House in that I understand that I do not understand finance. We have a system now under which only last week shares in "Smith's Crisps" wilted because of something which President Kennedy said two months ago to the ghost of the late Andrew Carnegie. My own shares in Lloyds Bank, and I have only a few which I got from my father, went down seven or eight bob because of something which President Kennedy said to American steel merchants. This is the sort of competitive, wild and incredible system they produce. They talk about the redistri-

bution of industry and planning, the wage pause and creating employment, while the eggheads on the Egg Board establish themselves in the middle of the City of London in an area which has never seen coccidiosis or baccillary white diarrhoea, and where if a White Wyandotte stopped there for a fortnight it might be mistaken for a Buff Orpington.
We have got planning on the Potato Board. It is fair to say that potatoes have increased in price, while Consols have gone down. A major planning item for the next Session may be the establishment of a White Fish Industry Board and Potato Board Liaison Board to ensure at long last that, to paraphrase the words of my late right hon. Friend, in an island planted almost exclusively with potatoes and surrounded almost entirely by fish, people in Oldham shall be sure of getting their fish and chips simultaneously. This is Conservative planning.
We were told in relation to textiles that the Government were so passionately attached to the Empire that it was necessary to regard our leasehold property in Hong Kong as an established part of the Empire, and that everyone who goes in must be regarded as being entitled to compete on a low wages economy, and because this is necessary, Lancashire must sacrifice itself in order to subsidise them. On the question of war on want, an issue going outside our terms of reference, I can at least claim an honourable record. I initiated this. This is not "war on want". This is the same sort of economics as those of the people who used to pay the dockers sixpence an hour and match girls a bob a day, because they said it kept the men out of mischief and the women off the streets. We cannot run an economy like that. I think we are entitled to ask the Government and the workers are entitled to know what the Government means by all this.
One of the principal exports of Hong Kong is floating restaurants, manufactured on a large scale with American capital, which is now pouring into Hong Kong. They are building luxury hotels in Hong Kong, but no one ever builds a luxury hotel in Lancashire.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And we say that they are our friends.

Mr. Hale: Even the British have built few luxury hotels in Lancashire. I received the other day from Hong Kong, or rather from The Statist on Hong Kong, a most elaborate brochure showing that this is one of the most developed places on the face of the earth. Mark you, of course, this is planning. The Americans are putting a bar on imports from Hong Kong, buying factories in Hong Kong, producing with cheap labour cheap textiles in Hong Kong, and exporting them to Manchester to compete with Lancashire. If this is private enterprise or "Tory freedom working, then this is the nearest thing to economic lunacy that has ever happened. The figures are here to show that the United States is investing increasingly in the Hong Kong textile industry.
I say that if we get full employment in Lancashire, if we build up our textile industry, as I hope to goodness a future Labour Government may do, we can afford to make the necessary provisions for a "war on want" campaign in Hong Kong, but we cannot afford it now. The Financial Secretary dare not tell us that as productive capacity is gradually increasing, as the industrial capacity of the poorer nations all over the world increases, and when they are producing, as China now produces textile machines which she exports to Indonesia, so they will produce motor cars instead of floating restaurants, and will the Financial Secretary then say that they can come in as free imports to put people out of work in Coventry?
The plain fact about what has happened in Lancashire and the trouble in Lancashire is that the Prime Minister, in one of those extraordinary asides that he makes in a state of ecstatic political diplopia—[Interruption.] Yes he sees double. We said that we were going to build one "Queen", but he was going to build two when he was in Glasgow. We decided to spend £30 million on capital assistance to textiles, but when he was in Oldham he talked about £40 million which was to do some good to somebody, without specifying who it was going to be. I am trying not to use the word which would come more rapidly to my lips, because tit would not be Parliamentary language, but that is what we were told and that is what happened. This was going to save a dozen seats in Lan-

cashire, but it did not. The Tory Members for Lancashire with small majorities, or the Tory candidates with only small majorities to overcome, were the people to whom the expenditure of this public money might have been expected to do some good. But it did not. They paid for votes but the goods were never delivered as they have little further interest.
I am not prepared to support the continued subsidisation of millionaire employers of cheap labour at the expense of my constituents.
I want to warn the House, whatever its wages policy, if the people are driven out of this industry again they will not come back. If we drive them out again that industry of ours is gone, and the uncertainty, the incredibility, of Government policy virtually compel a lack of certainty. That is what we have. I say that if we are imposing a pay pause the workers are entitled to know how long it is likely to last.
The right hon. Gentleman has had a magnificent demonstration of co-operation today from the engineers, as reported in the evening paper, which is my source for saying that. I understand that they have agreed to accept a 3 per cent. increase. It is a generous gesture of co-operation.
I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that before he turns up all the massive notes the hon. Lady supplied him with he turns up some of the things said by his hon. Friends about my late right hon. and learned Friend, the late Sir Stafford Cripps, when he imposed a similar measure in more difficult and more serious circumstances. Because, of course, the noble lord, the present Lord Sandwich, or whatever he is, said only recently that the Government's crises are conveniently electorally timed: we always get a period of expansion just before an election we always get a period of difficulty immediately afterwards.
The only other thing which one wants to say about this is that when the dead hand of this Government touches any one industry, it withers. Always, whatever they have tried to help, they have injured. Even Cunard's shares went down immediately they began to take a benevolent interest in the work of that


company. I cannot complain, and I do not complain, and I certainly do not want to hold up the House any longer, but I think that it is fair of me to say, and it is probably generous to say of that party which is committed in its history either to standing still or to retreat, that it is ungenerous for us to complain too bitterly if it stands still.
I took the House for a moment to the seashore in opening, and finally I will take it back to the seashore. I have had some contemplative moments on the seashore in Galway Bay and reading of Professor Hewatt's most fascinating researches in California into the habits of limpets. It threw a good deal of light on the habits of other members of the Conservative Party. It has always been difficult to distinguish one limpet from another. I have had the difficulty of recalling their constituencies. The problem was to ascertain first, granted that there is normally a limpet in the same place, whether it is the same limpet. Dr. Hewatt noted that between tides the limpets moved during a period of two hours or so, normally forwards towards the shore, and then they moved back. By use of numbers on shells he was able to demonstrate that always the same limpet returned to precisely the same position. They moved with the receding tide and they came back and they all also took their roots and became immovable and solid and prepared to defy the tide when it returned. The professor cut a little niche in a rock to see what would happen and to see if they would get over it. It was a sort of common mark. We might call it a common market. They looked hesitantly into the niche, they hovered on the brink, and then, realising the danger, they withdrew for a time, and finally one by one they went round the mark on to the other side, immediately resuming with absolute precision their original positions. We have had eleven years of observing this, and some of us are a little tired of it.
While I personally have no quarrel with an intelligent policy designed to prevent inflation, I must insist that inflation has gone on in this country to an extent wholly unwarranted in view of the depression of import prices and the favourable terms of trade the Government have had. While there may be a

good deal to be said, in co-operation with "Neddy" and planning with the T.U.C., and by agreement with the organised workers, for trying to pursue a policy of this kind, they cannot do it in isolation. By investing in poverty they have established an economy in which I.T.V., strip-tease and chemin-defer are the most prosperous of all industries. They have produced a London which looks very different from the London we used to know, but not very much improved.
I do ask them to say, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say—because he is one of the few people who, I think, may say it—that the Government, if they do decide to go on with this, are really going to be frank with the House, the nation and the people and are going to be fair to the organised workers and generous to those with a sense of devotion, the nurses and the probation officers, who have served us for too long at such miserable wages.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. John Page: In having to follow such a well-known orator as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I wish I were one of those limpets he described at the end of his speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] I am not, unfortunately: I have taken the plunge. Therefore, I think that it would be better if I went to church, where he started his speech, in talking of the services he described.
I think that perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) may really have been saying, in the words of the hymn, "Lead kindly light", but the hon. Member for Oldham, West merely provided the encircling gloom. I should like to come to the end of the verse and say,
One step enough for me.
I turn, for a change in this debate, to the subject of incomes policy, and if I may, as I wish my one step to be very short, I shall disregard investment income and the income of self-employed people. I feel that it would also be wise to avoid the incomes of elected people. What I should like to dwell on for these few moments is the differentials in wages and salaries which are earned by people who work for different kinds of organisations.
In a speech a few weeks ago my noble Friend the Minister for Science gave the


first statement authoritatively from a member of the Cabinet on the reassessment of certain professions within a national incomes policy. His words were:
Some professions, in particular those which demand long periods of training and a high degree of personal devotion and self-sacrifice have been persistently under-valued in the past and must be better valued in the future. We never intended and never said that 2½ per cent. was to be absolutely rigid, still less that it was to be permanent. We must get ourselves off this hook as soon as possible.
I do not think the Government are really on the hook, but I think that they are caught in their own net, and the warp of this net is full employment and the weft is collective bargaining.
To get out of this net we have got to consider the problems facing the country in dealing fairly with those who work for different kinds of organisations, first, the prospering industries, secondly, the depressed industries, and, thirdly, the non-productive industries in the public service.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who was here a moment ago, once said that wage rates are not to be dependent on the ability of the employing organisations to pay. That is something that we must take into consideration. Nevertheless, in a productive and prospering industry, with productivity per man greatly increased, it is difficult to explain that the whole of this increase in productivity and the benefit from it should not be shared by those in the industry. It must be shared by those who support the people in those productive industries by their non-productive work.
Also, I believe that it is quite unfair to ask people to invest their work in the non-prosperous industries and work in those declining industries for a lower rate of pay than can be available to those in the prosperous industries. I believe that the main cause of resentment in connection with wages and salaries is that other people are doing better than they are, though by their own standards they themselves may not be doing badly—the fact that others are doing better rather than the fact that they themselves may be underpaid or that their work is undervalued. The philosophy behind a great many people

in respect of their incomes is "keeping up with the Joneses", not "doing a lot better than poor old Jones."
This question of differentials was also mentioned by the Prime Minister in a recent speech, and I should like to quote an extract from it. The Prime Minister said that:
Any incomes policy must allow for special cases where what is demanded is not a normal increase but rather a re-assessment so that the value of the services of a particular class may be better recognised. This is specially important in those cases where the value of an occupation cannot be measured by productivity.
That was the burden of my hon. Friend's speech, but I do not feel that she gave many clues to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who will be replying about how this would be arranged.
I suggest that there is a way in which this reassessment can take place. I suggest that in looking at a problem it is often worth while trying to visualise the ideal solution, and, having found it, see whether one can make one's way towards it. I wonder whether the House would agree that a perfect incomes policy would be one where each employed person would receive a wage that he believed to give a fair and adequate return for his work, the total sum being within the ability of the community to pay. There were no great cries of dissent at that remark, and so I feel that perhaps an incomes policy which produced this result might receive quite a lot of support.

Mr. H. Hynd: In case the hon. Member is misinterpreting the lack of voices of dissent, would he explain what he means by "an income which the community could afford to pay"?

Mr. Page: I mean an income which the country could afford to pay. I was saying that if every man could receive what he believed was right and fair for the work he did and was happy about it, and if the country were able to afford the total sum of those wages, we should be in an ideal situation.
To the surprise of many, I believe that such a policy exists. I believe that it has been tried out experimentally. I believe that pilot schemes on this line have been tried out in about five or six


different industries and types of employment. They have been tried out on full scale in two organisations. I believe that perhaps the findings of this work could form a pattern which could be followed not only by the present Government, but by other Governments in this and other countries during the latter part of the present century.
I am referring to work which many hon. Gentleman on both sides of the House will recognise, what is known as the Glacier Project, carried out by a group of research workers inside the Glacier Metal Company. This project was started by the Labour Government in 1948 under the auspices of Sir Stafford Cripps, who allowed £30,000 to be set aside for this major work of research into industrial relations and management—the biggest research work of this kind ever carried out in this country.
The findings of the project team have been published and copies were, I believe, sent, in brief form, to all hon. Members, many of whom showed interest. But I have been making quite a study of it and I believe that there is a great deal in what has been discovered. The main findings, based on work in different companies over the last five to ten years, are, first, that the best measurement for a graduation of pay should be in the amount of responsible work and responsibility carried out by the individual in his employment—a kind of working out of the cubic capacity of the can which the individual worker carries. This has been worked out on the basis of an assessment of the amount of supervision that each of these individuals requires in his work.
The second major finding is the acceptance by the individual workpeople of wage levels which they feel to be instinctive and natural to themselves as fair recompense for the work they do. I quote this finding from the Report:
Employed persons whose work is shown by measurement to be at the same level of responsibility, privately state the same wage or salary to be fair for the work they are doing;
These are individuals carrying the same amount of responsibility for different work in different industries and different types of organisation. The Report adds:
this finding holds regardless of a person's actual earnings, of occupation, of current market values or of income tax levels.

It is noteworthy that individuals paid in accord with the scale for their level of work state that they feel fairly paid. If paid above the scale, they describe themselves as being 'very favourably' paid, and feel uneasy.
That, I feel, may cause a certain amount of surprise.
And if paid below the scale they describe their jobs as underpaid and push for more. The greater the deviation between actual and equitable payment, the stronger the feeling of disequilibrium.
Many hon. Members may consider these findings to be absurd at first sight, but they are the findings of serious men on a long-term research project on which they have worked for the last fifteen years. They are not the findings of a few theoretical economists, or of a lot of cranks. They are the findings of responsible men, which have been published, critically analysed and accepted by a number of other responsible people. Up to the present, the Government have not taken the slightest serious interest in the findings of this project through the Ministry of Labour, or the office of the Minister for Science, or the Treasury, or any other Department. Will my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary get two men from the Treasury just to study the the findings reached at the end of this project? It would take two men probably three or four days to study the findings and report to him at the Treasury whether they thought that there was any substance in the suggestion. If he cannot arrange that, I wonder whether he would suggest that someone from the N.E.D.C. might see whether there is anything in the suggestion; failing that, if not someone from the office of the Minister for Science, then someone from the Ministry of Labour.
If there is substance in this suggestion, if there is a wage level which employees find equitable and fair and which employers find themselves capable of paying, surely that 1s something in the whole circle of an incomes policy which should be given very serious thought.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
regrets the total failure of Her Majesty's Government to propose measures that will halt rising prices, increase productivity, improve public services and ensure a rising standard of living for all sections of the population.


The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) has heavily brought down the average length of speech so far, and I shall try very hard to follow his example. The first two speeches took up just under half the time available for the total debate, and I shall try hard nut to exceed my time. The hon. Member also set a precedent by discussing the incomes policy in some detail for the first time, and I will follow that example.
I was glad that he mentioned the investigations at Glacier Metals. He was quite right to say that they had the very strong support of Sir Stafford Cripps, I think even before he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they were carried out under the auspices of an industrialist who is a very well known member of the Labour Party. I am not quite certain whether we can build on this. I sympathise with the hon. Member when he asks that the Government should look into it, but I feel a little sceptical, because I am sceptical about the tone of a lot of the writing of Dr. Jaques and others. The hon. Member quite rightly said that this was not written by theoretician economists but to some extent by theoretician psycho-analysts, and I would not necessarily think that an improvement.
It may well be that these two principles—the principle of the amount of responsibility and the principle of self-judgment, as it were, of what is a reasonable reward—could be an aid to wage fixing within a particular factory or plant. But I have considerable doubts about how far they may help us when we are discussing, as we are this evening, incomes policy as a whole, and that is what I want to talk about.
If there is such a thing as a coherent national incomes policy, about which I am a little sceptical, it must be based on a mixture of the two principles. One principle is in some broad sense a general sense of social justice and what a particular occupation is worth, whether it is falling badly behind other and similar occupations, a general sense of what people consider to be the proper reward in an occupation. The other principle is obviously the economic principle, that if there is a shortage of people in that occupation, it may be such a shortage that a large increase in wages or salaries is required.
Our main complaint about the Government's income policy is that it is not based on either of those two principles, nor even on a mixture of them. It bears no relation to anyone's sense of social justice, nor to the economic needs of particular occupations. The awards made in the last month or two—nurses, 2½ per cent.; doctors, 9 per cent.; engineers, 2½ per cent.; probation workers, 2½ per cent.; almoners and psychiatric social workers, 14 per cent.—there is no kind of pattern. The various increases do not bear any relation to what most people would consider the worth of those occupations, nor do they bear the slightest relation to the economic necessities of those occupations.
It is our objection that there is not an incomes policy in any sense of the term. There is simply an incomes muddle. The Government are trying to hold down wages and incomes as a Whole and the outcome is related not to social or economic considerations but partly to pure chance—what some industrial court happens to recommend—and partly to the strength of the bargaining groups, the weakest coming out worst and the strongest best. It is not a policy which achieves any objective which we share in the slightest. For example, consider the two categories which have been mentioned, nurses and probation workers. Obviously, the 2½ per cent. offer to nurses was related not to what most people deserve in some general sense of the importance of their work, nor to whether we need more nurses, but purely to the figure which the Chancellor gave as the guiding light. Similarly with regard to probation workers.
Surely, after the Morison Committee's Report, everybody was agreed that we had to pay probation workers more? The normal work of a probation worker is heavy, but the case load work is much too high. Everybody now agrees that there is a serious wastage out of the probation service, and they also agree that the differential is too low to provide a sufficient incentive to people to move from one place to another to seek promotion. If we had more probation workers, we should, on balance, save money and not spend it. After all, if every probation worker


kept two people a year out of an institution, the result would be to save public money. The offer of 2½ per cent. to probation workers and nurses, compared with 14 per cent. to almoners, does not make sense either on social or economic grounds, and our complaint is that the Government's income policy is neither rational nor coherent.
The case of the nurses and probation workers occupied a large part of the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). The Government's incomes policy tends to be biased against the public sector. This is due to a number of reasons, but partly because of the Tory Party's attitude to Government expenditure. The hon. Lady appears to be terribly critical of the Government's policy, but nevertheless votes for it month after month. She is constantly trying to get the best of both worlds. She is often a courageous critic of the Government, and yet she votes for their policy.

Dame Irene Ward: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at my Division record before making statements of that kind. When I feel that I want to vote against the Government, I do so. Certainly on these issues the hon. Gentleman will find that what I said works in with the votes that I have recorded.

Mr. Crosland: I have a good idea of the hon. Lady's Division record. She occasionally votes against the Government on specific issues such as nurses' pay, but she would never vote against the Government on a major wage policy from which the specific issues arise. That is why I say that she is constantly trying to get the best of both worlds.
Because of the Government's bias against wages and salaries in the public sector, they, like most other Governments in Western Europe, have no incomes policy for publicly-employed people. As was pointed out in the O.E.E.C. Report on rising prices, issued a year ago, in Britain, as in other countries, the Government are the biggest single employers of labour, and yet they have no incomes policy for their employees, nor even a policy of relating the wages of their employees to incomes outside. The only policy they practise

is to react to an economic crisis in two ways. First, they cut investment, and, secondly, they try to keep down wages in the public sector. These are the two typical panic reactions to crises.
It is for those reasons that when there is an imposed pay pause like this there is an unjust bias against public service employees as opposed to employees in manufacturing industries outside the Government's sphere. The only answer to this is that the Government will have to accept two principles for the incomes of their employees. First, in broad terms they will have to accept the principle of comparability. Obviously this has been accepted in particular fields inside the public sector, but the Government still have, in broad terms, to accept that all remunerations in the public sector, whether salaries or wages, must go up steadily.
One reason why we get into difficulties in the public sector is the jerkiness with which this problem is dealt with. Teachers, or nurses, or bus drivers, or whoever it may be, are given a substantial rise. But then, for the next six or seven years no further increases are awarded to them and the Government suddenly wake up to the fact that these groups have fallen far behind everybody else. In private industry we have become accustomed to the idea that in probably most years wages and salaries go up by whatever percentage is necessary to meet rising costs, but we have not achieved the same principle in the public sector.
In addition to the principle of comparability we also have to accept the notion that in the public as well as in the private sector there has to be an annual increase in incomes. If it is an annual increase it need not be as large or as jerky as an increase happening once in every seven years. But I am certain that the principles of comparability and steadiness have to be accepted. It has not been accepted in the Government's incomes policy, and that is one of the reasons why it has been an appalling failure.
The hon. Lady said, quite rightly, that there was indignation in large parts of the public sector today and she made a comparison, which struck me as curious,


with 1931–32. I think that the comparison with 1932 is that the Government have succeeded in creating indignation in the public sector which has not been known since then, and this has really been the most frightening result of the Government's so-called incomes policy. It may be that there is a case for a coherent national thought-out policy, including all forms of income—profits, dividends, wages, salaries, and so on. We know that other countries—Holland and Sweden in particular—have tried to operate such a policy. I think that there is some case for this but that there is a tendency enormously to exaggerate it. However, that is not relevant to our discussion today, because that is not the sort of incomes policy that we have had under this Government.
It has been a vague attempt to keep down incomes everywhere, the success or failure of this depending on the strength of particular bargaining groups. What is certain is that the Government have succeeded in keeping incomes down rather lower than they otherwise would have been, not as a result of a sensible incomes policy, but as a result of a measure of deflation over the last year. The Government's only real economic policy is by deflation, plus a certain amount of incomes policy following that, to keep down the rate of wage increases here to about two years below what they think they will be in most other European countries, to improve our relative position. It is the conscious policy of the Government to improve our competitive position at the cost, however, of two years' almost total loss of output and growth.
Hon. Members on this side of the House think that the price is too heavy. We do not think that this is the right way to proceed. The cost in terms of the loss of wealth and output and the cost in terms of injustice in the way this incomes policy works make the price very much too high, particularly as we do not get the advantage which we might get from deflation when we keep prices down. At the same time as this happens, prices keep rising. As the hon. Lady said, the cost of living index rose by seven points last year, and she rightly remarked that the cost of living index does not measure the true cost of living

for many of the people that we may be talking about.
The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance gave a false impression the day before yesterday when he announced the new scales of National Assistance. He gave the impression that the cost of living index was a true measure of the cost of living of the people on National Assistance. Most people agree that those living on National Assistance spend relatively much more on two things—food and fuel—so that the cost of living for them is not measured by the index.
For all these reasons, we do not think that the Government are adopting the right policy when they create deflation in order to make our wages and prices more competitive. We on this side would much rather go for the alternative policy of rapid growth. This is the longstanding difference between the two sides of the House during the last ten years.
I want to be brief. I shall say only three things about growth. There are many things that we need for growth, but there are three things in particular, and because the Government are not putting their hand to any of them we are sceptical about their will power and their intentions.
The first necessity is confidence, plus planning. One of the most dangerous things that is happening now in this country—although to a lesser extent than in the United States—is that industrialists, both public and private, are beginning to lose confidence in any sort of prospect of steady and sustained growth. Even after the setting up of the N.E.D.C. we still have these stop-start policies, and we still have the depressing Budget speeches of the Chancellor, talking the whole time about soundness and never about growth. All the emphasis in his last Budget speech was on soundness, and all the rest. There is a serious danger that public and private industrialists will lose confidence in the nation and that we shall not have a steady and rapid growth in the next few years. This confidence can be restored only by positive Government planning through the N.E.D.C., but, so far, although we have had an enormous number of words there has been no definite sign of anything good


coming out of it. I only hope that it will.
The second thing required for growth is more investment. We can argue between ourselves as to how much more there should be, and exactly how important investment is—but none of this matters. Everybody agrees that we need more investment in order to get more rapid growth. The real condemnation of the Chancellor's Budget speech was that he said that private manufacturing investment was to be lower next year than this, and did nothing about it. It was the most glaring omission in the Budget. We have had a reduction in investment, but the Government have not taken one step to correct the position.
The third and most serious requirement is for some kind of reform of the international monetary system. We have too few reserves; Americans have too few reserves, and the Canadians have too few reserves. Almost every major country either has too few reserves or thinks that it has. The danger of this position was brought out by a surprisingly progressive leader in the Economist a week ago. It referred to the recent Canadian increase in tariffs and cuts in public expenditure and home investment, and called this an unsavoury whiff from the 1930s, which it is. It does, for the first time since the end of the war, make one think of the thirties with competitive deflation and restriction—with one country starting it, a second having to follow suit, and so on right round the world. In the last few years we have had some co-operation among the central bankers, but this is not enough. If the central bankers ease the position of the Canadian dollar they will lay down conditions, which may lead precisely to this sort of competitive deflation. In the case of Canada it probably will lead to that.
This problem can be solved only by a considerable reform of the whole international reserve and monetary structure, and the serious indictment of the Government is that during the last two years, when, as the Financial Secretary knows, there have been all these discussions about the Triffin plan and the Bernstein plan, and elaborate proposals for major reforms, the British Government have

never taken the lead but have always been content with relatively minor, small-scale reforms. It is becoming more and more certain that if that is all we are to get we simply shall not be able to have the rapid growth that we want.
I do not want to go on any longer. When the hon. Lady spoke she said that her intention was to improve the Government whereas ours was to destroy it. We seem to be in a majority in the country, since 61 per cent. of those questioned by the national public opinion poll showed themselves to be anti-Government. The real argument for not trying to improve but to destroy the Government is not that this is what most people want but that it is now too late for any improvement. Destruction is now the only possible course.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In the limited time at our disposal it is difficult to do justice to the serious issues that we should be discussing. My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) has made the kind of informative and analytical speech which one would have expected in a debate of this kind. Although I differ from him fundamentally in my approach to our problems I wish to make quite clear that I have the greatest respect for his integrity and character and for the conscientious service which he performs for the Labour movement and in this House.
I had hoped that in this debate we should have the kind of reappraisal of the economic position of the country which is so urgently necessary at the present time. I cannot adopt the same approach to our problems as have other speakers. I wish to voice the views of those men and women with whom I belong and whom I have served all my life. My only desire is to retain their confidence and prove worthy of the confidence which so far they have reposed in me.
For generations this country was free from invasion because of our geographical position and the protection afforded by the sea, and because we had a powerful Navy. But because of the changes in the world situation we are now one of the most vulnerable countries in the world. For generations, too, we were almost the only workshop of the world


Our exports went all over the world. Just as in time of war we were the most wonderful country in the world so, now from an economic point of view, we could be a wonderful country. Therefore, all hon. Members whose desire it is to safeguard the present position and to utilise it as a basis for working towards something even greater and better should be concerned in the way in which I hope to indicate.
Despite the situation to which I have referred, I think that, once again, we could be the world's greatest workshop. I had the good fortune to be trained and educated from a technical point of view in one of the most efficient industries in the country, with which are connected many well-known names, and I am sure that if we could embark on the necessary research and adopt a progressive industrial outlook the country would be able to maintain the present level of exports and, indeed, increase it, thus enabling us to improve our position in the world. Because that is my belief, I wish to make a contribution to this debate.
The economic position of our country depends upon our manufacturing and productive industries. Particularly does that apply in relation to our export trade. In my view, all our activities should be adjusted to meet that situation. During the last fifteen years no attention has been paid by the House of Commons, in particular, to the constant increase in overhead charges in the productive industries. This has created great difficulties for those engaged in those industries, because in catering for the export trade they must consider production costs. We have now reached a situation in which the burden which manufacturers in productive industry are carrying are far too great.
Steps should be taken to ease them. The present position is that millions of people have had substantial increases in wages and salaries whilst those engaged in manufacturing over 60 per cent. of our exports have not had a penny during the past few years until this week. This has created a situation in the principal export industries about which the Government should be very concerned.
Early in the last war I had many conversations with people like Sir Kingsley

Wood and Sir John Anderson, because I had put question after question about the need to avoid inflation. I was interested in the subject because I served in the Army of Occupation in the First World War and, therefore, dreaded inflation ever coming to this country. As a result of the policy of the "Win-the-War" Coalition Government, inflation was avoided to a large extent, to the everlasting credit of the whole country during the war.
It is during the past twelve years, in particular, that we have suffered from inflationary trends. I admit that there is no one reason for this trend, but I shall mention the main contributory factor. It was not increased wages during the past twelve years that produced the inflationary situation about which the Government were recently concerned. It was increased prices that produced it. Wages chased prices. It was not prices that chased wages. In addition, there has been an easing of all controls on industry, an increase in Stock Exchange gambling and an increase in get-rich-quick take-over bids. All these factors have had a serious cumulative effect on our internal position and have produced an inflationary situation.
If any hon. Member doubts my statement of the fundamental reason for the inflationary situation, I invite him to go to the Vote Office or the Library and study the Government's Blue Book "National Income and Expenditure 1961". It will be found from Table 11 on page 7 of that document that during the last decade our gross national product increased by 90 per cent. Consumers' expenditure increased during the same period by 76 per cent., but Government expenditure increased by 101 per cent., and it is Government expenditure that has created this really serious inflationary situation.
Therefore, at a time when this country wishes to hold its own in the great competitive export drive which is beginning to take place in the world, all those who support the Government's gigantic expenditure are responsible for the inflationary situation. The time has arrived when this House should accept the responsibility of making constructive proposals for dealing with that situation.
There is no time to say all that I would like to have said, but I would just mention that nearly twenty years ago my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave me a copy of a memorandum that he had prepared analysing how the wealth in this country was owned in those days. It made a great impression on me. But in the time that has elapsed since then the situation has become even more serious. Had there been time I would have quoted from a recent issue of the Observer which drew attention to the present serious situation. It is the inflationary effect of the ownership of wealth, which gives to the relative rich incomes that they ought not to be drawing, even in a capitalist system, bearing in mind the serious economic situation of the country and the terrible burden that is being carried by manufacturing industry.
Great bitterness is aroused in me when I hear some of the speeches which are made in this House and in the country, and when I consider the circumstances of the people to whom I belong. Even the work done by girls is analysed by time and motion study. Every movement is recorded on films, which are taken into back rooms and studied so that the tempo can be increased and production costs reduced to a minimum.
Tension in industry is such that although the workers recently voted against a strike and adopted a responsible attitude, the Government are playing with fire if they rely on there being no industrial unrest. They should make inquiries about the feeling in industrial areas arising from the unfair administration of the alleged pay pause which was introduced by this Government about two years ago. Manufacturing industry will not be able to stand up to the situation much longer. Had there been time, I would have quoted from letters which have appeared recently in the Financial Times giving evidence in support of my plea, letters from some of the most able accountants in this country dealing with our serious situation.
I do not mind what is thought in this House, but I do mind what is thought outside, and I want to emphasise that owing to the limited time at my disposal

I cannot make the realistic case that I should like to have done. I have reached the stage when I am not concerned about what other people think. What matters is what one thinks and does oneself. I remember the saying I used to hear in my young days, that those who care most, whether it be for their homes or their country, dare most.
The time has come when the House of Commons should make quite clear that the only satisfactory way to deal with our present situation is to make an immediate reduction in our military expenditure of at least £300 million. I made a similar suggestion, speaking then of a reduction by £200 million, when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will not repeat the observations which I know were made about this matter, but the right hon. Gentleman was the most sympathetic, and it was obvious that, when he was Chancellor, he was most concerned about the problem and welcomed constructive suggestions of that kind. This country embarked upon gigantic military expenditure which it should never have undertaken. It has been a terrible burden, and we owe it to industry now to ease it.
We have heard a lot about Dr. Beeching. I shall make no observations about Dr. Beeching or his policy now, but I suggest that an investigation is required into expenditure by certain Government Departments, particularly the War Office, the Air Ministry and the Admiralty. Does any right hon. or hon. Member differ with me about that? At each General Election since 1951, every Conservative candidate has given an undertaking to the electors that, if returned, he would work for the reduction of Government expenditure. Every new Government party elected since then has been responsible for a betrayal of those promises.
The time has come when someone should have the courage to remind hon. Members of what they have said. I am not speaking about people personally, because I have had too much experience to be drawn into personalities. I am speaking of the broad promises which have been made, leading the people up the garden. One undertaking


after another has been given by Tory Members that they would make proposals for reducing Government expenditure.
Can anyone remember proposals being made like those being made tonight? In my view, the House itself does not play the game with its own Members. I see the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) in his place and I am reminded of the great and conscientious service for which he and other hon. Members are responsible in the sub-committees of the Estimates Committees, which meet for hours and hours, week after week, upstairs. The members of the Committee do a great deal of work. They visit Ministries and outside establishments. They prepare Reports for the consideration of the House. Had I more time, I should quote from the Sixth Report of the Estimates Committee, one of the greatest indictments of Government practice ever published in this country. Not a word has been said in the House about extravagant expenditure in the Service Departments during the past few years.
For the Navy, there has been an increase of £31·6 million, for the Army an increase of £34·9 million and for the Air Force an increase of £20·6 million, a total increase of £87·1 million superimposed upon previous expenditure. The Estimates Committee says that, judging by the answers given by responsible civil servants who appeared before it, the tendency will be for this expenditure to increase during the next few years. Has not the time arrived when we should speak out in this way? Industry must readjust itself to this situation if this country is to hold its own.
Time is limited and I do not wish to be charged with what other hon. Members have been charged with. I am satisfied to have made a brief contribution to the debate. However, in two weeks' time we shall be asked again to vote large sums of money for defence. We shall have a White Paper of about six pages before us from which we shall learn how the military has been juggling with millions of pounds. What they have no spent here, they have spent there. I compare military expenditure with the industry to which I belong. Responsible administrators have to watch every penny of expenditure. The

rate-fixing departments in large concerns collectively employing over 20,000 people have to fix prices down to the last halfpenny. Yet we are responsible for acquiescing in the application of the seventeenth century principle of virement which enables the military to juggle with millions of pounds. We have a gigantic expenditure of £1,700 million.
This country can stand up in the world, look everyone straight in the face and say that in two world wars we have made a great contribution to saving the world for all that is best. For many years expenditure has been much greater than it should have been. The time has come when, irrespective of our political differences, we should say to the rest of the world, "Great Britain can no longer stand this expenditure. We propose taking the initiative in reducing it to ease the burden on our export trade so that our men and women can have a better chance to work for a greater percentage of international trade to enable us to have a better chance of holding our own in world affairs"

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Michael Shaw: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). I cannot go far with him in his argument for an immediate reduction of £300 million in defence expenditure, but I have great sympathy with his suggestion that the welfare of the country is founded on our manufacturing industries, and particularly on their capacity to export. A small flame is kindled in my breast that the hon. Gentleman might join several of my hon. Friends and me in a policy for some preferential tax treatment for exporters in order to achieve an objective which, apparently, the hon. Gentleman and I hold dear.
We have heard a great deal about the pay pause tonight. We have heard rather more about other matters not directly connected with the pay pause. I believe that the pay pause was right. I admit straight away that I do not think that it was perfect, but it was effective. Had the Chancellor not had the courage to bring it into effect, there


would have been very serious consequences for the country.
The hon. Member stated that for too long, as a result of the policies of the Government, we had had inflation. I believe that what would have caused far greater inflation would have been devaluation of our currency, as there was in 1949. The introduction of the pay pause last July probably resulted in saving the country from having to make a further devaluation. We should remember that the wage pause was brought in against a background of general prosperity, against a background of the fact that over the last ten years wages had risen by one-third in value.
I wish to make only two points. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that the incomes policy on which the Government are working must be stated in such terms as everyone can understand. The reasons for any alterations that may be required in the methods of negotiation and arbitration and in the methods of settlement of wage claims must be made clear. Furthermore, it must be made abundantly clear that any alterations which are necessary in the system are fair to both sides, otherwise the system, if altered, would not work. Imperfect though they may be, the systems which have been built up have proved of tremendous benefit both to management and to men.
An incomes policy in this or in any other country, but particularly here, cannot be regarded in isolation. No matter how perfect the system which is acquired or developed, if the general economic policy is not right, the incomes policy will not succeed. Any sudden, violent fluctuations in our economy are bound to bring a distortion in the general level of earnings. The obvious distortion is that, clearly, there would be a complete and rapid change of circumstances which would lead to the stronger unions being able to catch up more quickly than those unions which are less strong, thus bringing about an immediate disequilibrium. But I will not develop this at any greater length. We need to have longer-term Government and local government planning. We have realised that the stop-start technique in our capital expenditure throughout the country is tremendously

wasteful. It is tremendously expensive in terms of wage rises, because every two or three years there is sudden, tremendous pressure for more labour in building and at the peak pressure points there is a rapid movement upwards in wage levels which remains after the pressure eases off, with the result that instead of getting the gradual and steady increase that we want the rise is sharp and uneven.
That must bring me to the end of what I have to say, except for this final comment. I believe that we have only begun to scratch at the surface of providing the necessary information against which wage claims can be settled. I believe that the leaders of industry, the leaders of management and of men have got there because they are leaders and because they are men of sense, and that if the facts are available, whether provided by the N.E.D.C. or anybody else, and if the general conditions of the economy are kept right by the Government these leaders will see what are the true interests both of industry as a whole and of their own particular sections in detail.
Therefore, I should like to press the point that more information shall be available, both from the national level and also from the industry level, both within our industries and within their rivals overseas, so that they can get a true comparison all round to provide a background to wage negotiations for the future.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Ray Gunter: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) will not misunderstand me when I say that the hon. Lady fascinates me. For the hon. Lady to move this Motion tonight congratulating the Government upon a policy which she professes she does not understand anyhow and she asks her Front Bench to explain to her, then to go on to say that the country does not know what it is about and to add that this alleged policy is unfair, and, finally, to congratulate the Government, I find rather strange indeed.
We are dealing with a Motion in which the hon. Lady congratulates the Government on a policy. Having listened very carefully to the hon. Lady tonight, I


would in the first place give emphasis to what my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said. To me, there is something a little curious about an hon. Member on the Tory benches coming forward with the observations which the hon. Lady has made today. She has complained of injustice and inequality as between different sections of the community, but she would not be a member of the Tory Party unless she accepted inequality in society. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, of course. The blunt truth is, and the hon. Lady knows it, that this crisis and this alleged policy stem from the fact that this nation has been over-paying itself for a number of years. We all know and understand that it is not an immediate crisis. For the last half-dozen years, we have been living beyond our means. That was the position at the time of the last General Election, when the hon. Lady had scratched all over her constituency, knowing that position, the words "Don't Let Labour Ruin It".
I suggest to her that she should go back to first causes. It is the party of hon. Members opposite that is responsible for the position in which we found ourselves in July of last year, when the Chancellor made his statement. They must accept that responsibility for it was they who taught the people—and this has been said in this House before—that perhaps thrift did not matter any longer. I say to those on the Government Front Bench tonight that they cannot have a wages and salaries policy in isolation. So long as they are prepared to face the consequences of a policy embracing not only wage earners and salary earners but those who have the profits and the dividends in this country, there are many sensible people who are prepared to listen to them and to sit down with them to settle that problem, but they cannot have a policy of this character which applies only to wage and salary earners. It must be an all embracing policy.
Because of the attitude of the Government, because they have failed clearly to put the issues before the country, because they have failed to impress the country that we are all in it together, certain consequences have flowed, which the hon. Lady was so worried about, in the machinery of negotiation.
There have been very dangerous blows struck at the system of collective bar-

gaining in this country. They are not quite so obvious as people think. I emphasise in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I am not one of those who believe that our existing form of collective bargaining is sacred and eternal. I accept the fact that in a developing society such as ours and with the changing pattern of industry, it could well be that the unions and management will have to come to a different understanding on how we arrive at job evaluation and the differentials between individuals. I accept it. But we can only make those changes which are necessary so long as we carry with us the confidence of those engaged in industry, and this Government stand indicted not so much because of their motives as because of their stupidity. They have by this method damaged the confidence of men who have been taught to believe in the forms of collective bargaining which we have had. There has been interference by the Government.
Let met here emphasise again that I would agree with the Chancellor that in the years to come it may well be that the voice of the Treasury ought to be heard at certain levels of wage and salary negotiations. I would not dispute it, but to do it in the hamhanded way in which it has been done in the last six months or so is damaging.
I would say to the hon. Lady—I cannot quite recall the offensive remark she passed about the Chancellor's White Paper—that that White Paper is about the daftest thing I have ever read. [An HON. MEMBER: "A namby-pamby document."] That was it, a namby-pamby document. The White Paper said to those engaged in the processes of collective bargaining that they must whittle down most of the customary arguments which are adduced in wages negotiations. I am not here arguing that they are sacred, but, nevertheless, there has been a pattern on which negotiations have taken place, and, as I say, to some degree or other, the White Paper has whittled it down, saying that the cost of living is not so important as it was, that increased productivity in certain industries is not a great factor, that we cannot talk so much about trends of profits, or shortage of labour, and that comparisons with incomes in other industries should not be made. All these


things are written down in the White Paper by some degree or another. I confess that I am completely bewildered as to what we are going to talk about. We shall be singing love songs across the table in negotiations if we cannot discuss these things.
I suggest to the hon. Lady that it is no good her grumbling and moaning now about the injustices to certain sections of the community, because they arise from the Government's policy. I want to allow time to the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the debate, and Heaven forbid that I should stand between him and his most devoted follower at the back, but I must say a word about the injustices which she emphasised. This is stark cowardice. The dockers beat the Government, did they not? They beat the Government because they were able to defend themselves. But the nurses could not defend themselves—and they roused the martial glory of the Etonians in the Cabinet and they said, "They shall not pass," and so they fought the nurses. What a way to deal with the dedicated sections of our community. That was injustice, and it ought to be put right.
All I say to the House is that the fact is that we have no policy, and we need a policy. Let no one be misguided enough to think that we can go on in the way we are going. We must have a policy—we can call it a national incomes policy or whatever else we like—which will determine the priorities and bring industrial peace, because that is essential.
The arbitration courts at the present time are, I am very glad to say, taking little notice of what the Government say to them. Let me repeat—this is not to say that I have not an open mind about the operation of industrial courts in the future—that the failure of the Government to implement the policy with justice and sense has gravely damaged the industrial machinery that we have built up. Consequently, my concluding words to the hon. Lady are that it is no good coming here and moaning about injustices, because they are the direct result of lack of Government policy and lack of Government understanding of the proper problems of industry.
I am surprised at some back benchers opposite who are men who know industry. There are men on the back benches opposite to whom I talk, for they know the language of industry. The tragedy is that on the Government Front Bench there is not a single member of the Government who can really talk that language, who understands the priorities of industry and who understands the important and the unimportant things in the field of industrial relations. It is about time some hon. Members on the back benches opposite made sure that the real voice of industry, the real voice that could interpret what is required to create good industrial relations, finds a place there so that we may be able to see matters in their proper light.

9.42 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): At the outset of her speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) asked me whether I would explain how successful the incomes policy has been. Just what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of her speech may not now be within the recollection of the House, but I will start by answering that question.
If my hon. Friend will look at a speech which I made in the House on 31st May, in answer to an Adjournment debate, she will find that I tried to deal with the precise point. As time is short, I will say just a brief word about it now. I said on that occasion—I gave reasons for the calculation—that if one took the six months' period from October, 1961, to April, 1962, wage rates rose by 2·2 per cent. I gave reasons for thinking that without the incomes policy they might have risen as much as 3 per cent.
I deliberately put what I had to say to the House in very broad terms because, obviously, here one is not dealing with something which admits of absolutely precise calculation. I said:
On the assumption that future wage increases are damped down as much as the calculations I have given suggest that they were damped down between October, 1961. and April, 1962…it is possible that retail prices will rise 1 per cent. to 1½ per cent. each year less than they otherwise would. This may not seem a dramatic figure. However, if we could achieve over a term of years an average rise of retail prices 1½ per cent. to per cent. less than we have experienced during the 1950's. this would make a substantial


difference to our competitive power abroad." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1962; Vol. 660, c. 1729.]
I am sure that that is true.
I should like, next, to take up the point in the Motion where my hon. Friend regrets that the application of the incomes policy has not been uniform throughout the private and public sectors. I have no doubt that this is the point more than any other which is uppermost in people's minds when they are discussing the incomes policy today. I would tell my hon. Friend that when one is looking at the history of the period since last July one must distinguish two distinct phases. First, there was the pay pause, which was introduced last July and came to an end on 1st April.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer always realised that the pay pause was bound to have a very sharp impact—indeed, I would be prepared to say a crude impact —on the public sector. For that reason, he made it clear that this could only be a temporary phase. Then, we had the interim White Paper on Incomes Policy in February last, which gave general guidance to those responsible for fixing incomes—general guidance in the interest of the economy as a whole, which was to apply both to the public sector and to the private sector.
In answer to the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), I suggest that if one reads again paragraphs 7 and 8 of the White Paper—while I accept his point that one has to consider carefully whether one is using social or economic arguments—one finds that the bias of those paragraphs was clearly on the economic side.
I do not think that one should underrate the effect that this White Paper has had. It has had effects on the private sector as well as the public sector. It has had effects on a number of industries, including some of very great importance to Britain's competitive power abroad. But no one has ever disputed for a moment that this is an interim White Paper and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made clear in the speech to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth referred, the Government are

still considering very carefully what should be our long-term incomes policy.
I have said in the House many times, and I think that it is well understood on both sides, that this is a major economic decision—one of the most important decisions in the economic field that any Government can make. Of course, the Government realise, as they have always done, that an absolutely flat level of pay increases is not something that can be maintained in the long term. It would not strike public opinion as fair. It would not be sound economics nor conducive to the sort of society we would wish to see.
But, at the same time, when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) —whose speech we listened to with great interest and respect—talks of going back to the situation as it was before July last year, I say to him that we have to avoid indiscriminate copying of an increase rightly granted in one sector of the economy by other sectors where there is not the same justification. That is what happened before July last year.
The hon. Member for Grimsby developed a perfectly fair point about the annual rate of increase which seemed rather closely in line with a very thoughtful letter written by Professor Kahn to The Times a little while ago. Professor Kahn was partly responsible for the O.E.C.D. report on prices, which rightly laid great stress on the problem of what was called "wage wage inflation"—the tendency of an increase rightly granted in one sector being copied indiscriminately in others. That is the biggest problem we shall have to face when framing a long-term incomes policy.

Mr. Hale: The Treaty of Rome will not allow us to have a policy of the sort which the Government have been considering for twelve years. If we join the Common Market, the Government will not be able to do this.

Sir E. Boyle: I do not want to avoid that point, but I am not an expert on the Rome Treaty, and, with time so short, I must ask to be excused from developing it. I do not believe, however, that there would be anything in the Treaty that would prevent us from developing an incomes policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Shaw) made an excellent speech. I agree with what he said about information. He is quite right about this. The Government, by one means and another—by speeches, by appearances on radio and television and by interviews with national and provincial newspapers—have done a good deal more to publicise this policy than is often realised. Sometimes rather unfair things are said about this. In addition, of course, the Government's policy has been spelled out at considerable length in correspondence with the T.U.C. and representatives of the white collar workers and the Civil Service unions, including the complete and important statement made on behalf of the Government before the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal.
I should like to take up one point in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), who spoke about the Glacier project and whether more could be done in the way of job evaluation. I would not wish to cast scorn on this, but it is illusory to think that the application of any one or more of the schemes to which my hon. Friend referred can provide the solution of the problems raised by a national incomes policy.
But there is some rather valuable material on this subject in the evidence which the Treasury presented in its memorandum to the Royal Commission on the Police. One point in the memorandum which struck me as strong was the principle not only that market situations change constantly, but that social judgments as to the value of certain kinds of work and professions change all the time. This is the very great difficulty of trying to achieve too much by the sort of means which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West had in mind.
I should like to say something on the subject of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Grimsby. I absolutely agree with him that the subject of long-term growth is at the heart of our economic problems today. In other words, the important point is not just achieving a rate of increase of produc-

tion in one year as a result of an increase in home demand, but of achieving a steady rate of long-term growth over a term of years.
It was just for this very reason that the Government set up the National Economic Development Council. I would not for one moment wish to suggest to the House that the Government can pass on any of their own responsibilities to this Council. On the contrary, the more the Government can be seen following policies which are conducive to growth the greater the value of the work that the N.E.D.C. can do. But the opposite is equally true—that it is surely of value that these considerable problems of how we can speed up technological change and develop competitive management and achieve a more rapid training and mobility of labour are matters on which the Government can gain a great deal from the advice which they will receive from the Council.
It is worth remembering that the N.E.D.C. today is not only considering the implications of a 4 per cent. growth rate, but is also to assess over a wide field of public policy and industrial practice the conditions which are likely to be favourable for a sustained rate of growth.
Growth is a matter of both sufficient demand and a response on the side of supply. Home demand in the United Kingdom throughout the 1950s was usually ample, but the response of industry on the supply side has not always been as elastic as we could wish. There is surely a need to modernise throughout British economic life. I was not able to listen to the hon. Member for Grimsby on the wireless last night, because I was otherwise engaged on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, but I would not quarrel—in fact, I would very much agree—with the emphasis which he laid, and always lays, on the importance of expert ability in all aspects of our national life, and the need to realise where specialist knowledge and expert ability are clearly required.
True economic growth is not simply a matter of statistics of output. It is one of the aspects of a growing economy that more of its members will spend their income not just on acquiring more goods, but on enjoying more services as


well. When one is considering differences in living standards, they are marked very often more than anything else by differences in the ability to enjoy certain services, and again, we ought not to overlook the importance of quality and variety of consumer goods.
On both sides of the House there is more realisation than ever of the importance of trying to promote an open economy. I have no doubt that we could achieve high statistics of production by shutting ourselves off from the rest of the world, provided that we were prepared to accept a very low level of consumer choice. But I do not believe that that is the sort of economy which most people wish to see.
The economic outlook today is reasonably good, despite uncertainties in the United States. As we have a more moderate trend in prices during the rest of the year, consumers will have more purchasing power and there will be the increase in consumer demand which my right hon. and learned Friend has forecast. Public expenditure is rising and the trend of exports is favourable. There is still every probability of a satisfactory expansion over the current financial year. We have made the necessary readjustment which had to be made as a result of last summer's balance of payments crisis.
The hon. Member for Grimsby made a number of points. First, he expressed the need for confidence, and, of course, I entirely agree with what he said about the need for industry to feel that we intend to promote a steady rate of growth based on a first-class competitive performance. He spoke about what we have neglected to do with regard to the reform of the international monetary system. I cannot speak with any specialist knowledge of the various plans —the Triffin Plan and the Bernstein Plan, and so on—which he mentioned, but we have taken two separate initiatives recently to increase the resources of the International Monetary Fund. We supported, and, indeed, took considerable initiative in supporting increased quotas and we also have supported an increase in borrowing powers from the Fund. I can assure the hon.

Division No. 238.]
AYES
[10.0 p. m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Ashton, Sir Hubert
Barter, John


Allason, James
Atkins, Humphrey
Batsford, Brian


Arbuthnot, John
Barlow, Sir John
Baxter, Sir Baverley (Southgate)

Gentleman, without going into details, that neither of these operations was quite so easy to negotiate as some people might have supposed.

On the subject of Government expenditure, I say this to the hon. Gentleman. I know that it is very easy to quote selective figures, but it surely is of significance that if we compare the Estimates of this year with the Estimates of 1951–52 not only has the total social expenditure more than doubled, but as a proportion of the gross national product we are today spending more on social and community services proportionately to the national product, and if we consider it as a proportion of Supply expenditure the change is quite dramatic. In 1951–52, the proportion of Supply expenditure on social and communal services was about 33 per cent. and today the figure is about 43½ per cent.

I link up the Motion and the Amendment by saying this. The greater the good sense shown on the incomes front the more fully it will be practicable to run our economy. Indeed, it is true to say that if we have moderation in claims for higher incomes this will lead to a higher rate of increase in real wages.

After all, what determines the standard of living in the long run must be decisions taken by many millions of people, and increases in productive efficiency and in sales efficiency all along the line. I believe that we have always been right, as a Government, to say that rising living standards must be based on a first-class competitive performance, that exports must lead growth and that our incomes policy is one vital part of the policy which we must follow if we are to achieve these desired results. It is for these reasons—

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: Mr. G. W. Reynolds (Islington, North) rose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 87.

Biffen, John
Henderson, John (Catcart)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hendry, Forbes
Prior, J. M. L.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hiley, Joseph
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenahawe)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pym, Francis


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hobson, Sir John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, James


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Holllngworth, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hornby, R. P.
Rees, Hugh


Bryan, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Burden, F. A.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roots, William


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Irvine, Bryant God man (Rye)
Russell, Ronald


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jennings, J. C.
Sharpies, Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Shaw, M.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cleaver, Leonard
Kirk, Peter
Smithers, Peter


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speir, Rupert


Corfield, F. V.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Costaln, A. P.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Storey, Sir Samuel


Coulson, Michael
Litchfield, Capt. John
Studholme, Sir Henry


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Summers, sir Spencer


Cunningham, Knox
Longden, Gilbert
Talbot, John E.


Curran, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Dance, James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Temple, John M.


Deedes, W. F.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Drayson, G. B.
McLaren, Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Duncan, Sir James
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carehalton)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maddan, Martin
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Errington, Sir Erio
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Turner, Colin


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Finlay, Graeme
Mills, Stratton
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fisher, Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Freeth, Denzil
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Gammans, Lady
Neave, Airey
Walder, David


Gibson-Watt, David
Noble, Michael
Wall, Patrick


Gilmour, Sir John
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Webster, David


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Goodhew, Victor
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Whitelaw, William


Gower, Raymond
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Green, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wise, A. R.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woodnutt, Mark


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Woollam, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peel, John
Worsley, Marcus


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingnorough)
Percival, Ian
Yates, William (The Wrekln)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pitman, Sir James



Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pitt, Miss Edith
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hastings, Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Dame Irene Ward and




Sir Godfrey Nicholson.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward


Ainsley, William
Gourlay, Harry
Mitchison, G. R.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grey, Charles
Morris, John


Awbery, Stan
Criffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Neal, Harold


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gunter, Ray
Oram, A. E.


Blackburn, F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Parker, John


Blyton, William
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pentland, Norman


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Prentice, R. E.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Hannan, William
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boyden, James
Harper, Joseph
Randall, Harry


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Rhodes, H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Ross, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Short, Edward


Crosland, Anthony
Hoy, James H.
Skeffington, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Small, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Diamond, John
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dodds, Norman
King, Dr. Horace
Spriggs, Leslie


Donnelly, Desmond
Lawson, George
Steele, Thomas


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fernyhough, E.
Lubbock, Eric
Stones, William


Fitch, Alan
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taverne, D.


Forman, J. C.
Mclnnes, James
Thornton, Ernest


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Millan, Bruce
Wade, Donald

White, Mrs. Eirene
Willis, E. G. (Edinburugh, E.)



Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES;


Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Woof, Robert
Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Marsh.

Main Question put:—

Division No. 239.]
AYES
[10.10 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Allason, James
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Arbuthnot, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Prior, J. M. L.


Atkins, Humphrey
Hastings, Stephen
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Barlow, Sir John
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Barter, John
Hendry, Forbes
Pym, Francis


Batsford, Brian
Hiley, Joseph
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biffen, John
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (wythenshawe)
Ramaden, James


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Birch, Rt, Hon. Nigel
Hobson, Sir John
Rees, Hugh


Bourne-Arton, A.
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Box, Donald
Hornby, R. P.
Roberts, Sir peter (Heeley)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Roots, William


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hughes-Young, Michael
Russell, Ronald


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharpies, Richard


Bryan, Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, M.


Buck, Antony
Jennings, J. C.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Burden, F. A.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smithers, Peter


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Kirk, Peter
Speir, Rupert


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cleaver, Leonard
Litchfield, Capt. John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Talbot, John E.


Corfield, P. V.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Costaint, A. P.
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Coulson, Michael
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Temple, John M.


Cunningham, Knox
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Curran, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Currie, G. B. H.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Dance, James
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Deedes, W. F.
Maddan, Martin
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Drayson, G. B.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Turner, Colin


Duncan, Sir James
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carahalton)
Mills, Stratton
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Miscampbell, Norman
Wakefield, Sir Waved


Errington, Sir Eric
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walder, David


Farr, John
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Finlay, Graeme
Noble, Michael
Webster, David


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Whitelaw, William


Freeth, Denzil
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gammans, Lady
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wise, A. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Gilmour, Sir John
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Woollam, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhew, Victor
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Cower, Raymond
Peel, John



Green, Alan
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gresham Cooke, R.
Pitman, Sir James
Dame Irene Ward and




Sir Godfrey Nicholson.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Donnelly, Desmond
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)


Awbery, Stan
Fernyhough, E.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fitch, Alan
Hoy, James H.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Forman, J. C.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Blackburn, F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Blyton, William
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
King, Dr. Horace


Boyden, James
Gourlay, Harry
Lawson, George


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Grey, Charles
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lubbock, Eric


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Crosland, Anthony
Gunter, Ray
Mclnnes, James


Cullen, Mrs, Alice
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Dalyell, T.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Milne, Edward


Diamond, John
Hannan, William
Mitchlson, G. R.


Dodds, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Morris, John

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 84.

Neal, Harold
Skeffington, Arthur
Thorpe, Jeremy


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wade, Donald


Oram, A. E.
Small, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Parker, John
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wigg, George


Pentland, Norman
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wilkins, W. A.


Prentice, R. E.
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Steele, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Randall, Harry
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Rhodes, H.
Stones, William



Ross, William
Taverne, D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Short, Edward
Thornton, Ernest
Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Marsh.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on initiating a policy designed to control inflation and to stabilise prices but calls on the Government to expound the policy with greater clarity; regrets that its application has not been uniform throughout the public and private sectors, and that private

industry has not always been stimulated sufficiently to co-operate; recognises that any policy applicable only to the public sector would be unfair to public servants and could not be indefinitely maintained; and calls on the Government to announce its future policy for an overall fair plan with a positive Outline as to its future intentions.

Orders of the Day — STOKESAY SCHOOL, SHROPSHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House the case of a school in the parish of Stokesay in my constituency and to tell the House the sorry story of obstinacy, inefficiency and lack of public sense which it illustrates in an education authority and the way in which the rightful expectations of the local community have been deceived.
The parish of Stokesay enfolds within its boundaries the town of Craven Arms, a community of about 2,000 people which originated a century ago with the coming of the railways. It acquired in time a considerable railway depot, railway houses, a cattle market, streets of shops and a residential area. Like other towns which have grown in this way, Craven Arms lacks some of the most characteristic features of a town. It has no main square, no Church of England church, no school playing fields and no large community hall, but it was provided some years ago with a school, known as the Stokesay County School, taking boys and girls from the age of 5 to 14.
In 1947 the Salop County Council, which is the local education authority, approved a development plan under the Act of 1944. This provided for the retention of this school as a primary school for children from 5 to 11, and for the construction of a new Stokesay modern school to be established as a two-stream school for children from 11 to 15 during the period 1950–53. A model of the school was exhibited in 1955 and the necessary Site was acquired in 1956.
No further steps had been taken to implement these proposals by 1957, in which year the development plan was at length approved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, but the same proposals were maintained unaltered in the plan as thus finally

approved. A new headmaster of the existing county school was appointed over ten years ago and was clearly given to understand that he was to take over the new secondary modern school.
It may be imagined that these proposals gave no little satisfaction to the people of Craven Arms. The new school was planned to draw from a wide surrounding area and the building was expected to include the usual large assembly hall. Educationally the community would have the benefit of a new modern school. Socially it would have the benefit for the first time of a large public hall for community purposes.
In spite of the delay in embarking on the scheme, frequent assurances were given by the authority of its in-tendon to proceed. In 1958 the deputy secretary of the education authority informed parents at the Stokesay school speech day that a start would be made on building a new school within a matter of months. Plans were approved by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the year 1961–62 and the headmaster was assured categorically in July, 1960, that the school would be built as planned.
In February, 1961, however, the Secretary of the education authority informed the headmaster, in what has been described as a casual and off-hand manner, that he had changed his mind about building this new school. A monster protest meeting was held at Craven Arms on 21st February and a petition signed by 1,041 local residents was sent to the county council. When a referendum was taken 406 parents out of 412 opted in favour of the proposed new Stokesay school. Notwithstanding these protests, the education committee resolved to abandon its original plan to build a secondary modern school at Craven Arms and instead to transport senior children to Ludlow for their education.
This proposal to vary the development plan was brought for confirmation to the quarterly meeting of the county council on 29th April following. The chairman of the education committee, who was warmly sponsoring this proposal, is also chairman of the county council and was in the chair at this meeting. At this meeting the county council representative for the Stokesay


area moved an amendment, which was duly seconded, to direct the education committee to implement the original development plan. After considerable discussion, the chairman accepted the motion to refer back the proposal. Although asked to take a vote on this motion, and although the council standing orders require such a vote, the chairman in fact did not call for a vote but formally accepted the reference back.

Mr. William Yates: Surely that must be wrong according to the county council procedure?

Mr. More: I think it must have been wrong, and I took the precaution to verify the fact with the clerk to the county council, whom my hon. Friend doubtless knows. The matter being referred back to the education committee, the committee again approved the proposal to vary the development plan. This proposal was again brought forward to the subsequent council county quarterly meeting on 15th July, 1961. On this occasion also the chairman of the education committee was in the chair. At this meeting a vote was taken and the education committee's proposal was passed by a small majority; but the number voting in favour of the proposal was substantially less than 50 per cent. of the council members, a number of whom abstained from voting.
Thus, at the first council meeting a vote on the proposal in favour of the new Stokesay school, or the risk of such a vote, was avoided through technical irregularity of procedure, and at the second council meeting the proposal to exclude the school was carried by a minority of the local education authority. When it is remembered that the chairman on both occasions was the chairman of the education committee who was sponsoring the variation of the original proposal, it can hardly be wondered that the people of Craven Arms felt that justice had not been done.
In these circumstances, acceding to the request of my constituents, I forwarded to my right hon. Friend the Minister a long and reasoned letter of protest and pressed him to hold a local public inquiry into the whole matter. I thought then, and I think now, that it was much

to be regretted that my right hon. Friend did not think fit to accede to this request. Instead, he was good enough to arrange for a deputation of my constituents to be received by a senior member of his Ministry, the chairman and secretary of the local education authority also being present. I put on record my constituents' appreciation of the courtesy with which they were received and heard.
The discussion at the interview, after outling the events which I have already recounted, turned principally on the merits of the local education authority's proposal, which I shall briefly summarise. The proposal was prompted by the fact that the situation in south Shropshire had turned out somewhat differently from the situation contemplated in the development plan. The development plan had provided, in addition to the new Stokesay school, for a new four-stream secondary modern school at Ludlow, eight miles south of Craven Arms and for a two-stream secondary modern school at Church Stretton, eight miles north of Craven Arms. The Ludlow school was built in 1958 but not to the full size contemplated in the development plan. The Church Stretton school, which had been established in temporary buildings some years before as a two-stream school, was provided with new and permanent buildings in 1960 and maintained at the same size.
The local education authority, in putting forward its proposal to vary the development plan, founded itself upon the Crowther Report, particularly upon the statement that
schools with an intake of 75 or less were not thought to have a useful future except in those parts of the country where the pattern of settlement is such that larger schools are out of the question.
The authority considered that larger schools had certain marked advantages, and it claimed that the proposed Stoke-say catchment area would not, in fact, support even a two-stream school. It opined, therefore, that the correct course was to abandon the Stokesay modern school and instead to enlarge the Ludlow Church of England school so as to provide accommodation for 600 children.
I had the privilege of listening to the discussion with the deputation at the Ministry. The authority's case was


challenged in almost every detail. In particular, the catchment area figures as put before the county council were alleged to be misleading and untrue and detailed graphs and figures were produced in support.
On 29th May last, a letter was sent from the Ministry to my constituents to say that the Minister had approved the local education authority's proposals and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to send a copy of the letter to me. The Ministry letter states that the Minister trusts that all concerned, parents, managers and others, will be ready to accept his decision as in the children's best interests. I am sorry to say that the letter appears to have had a wholly contrary effect. This arises not only from the decision itself, but also from the fact that the letter does not appear to meet, or, indeed, to mention, many of the points that were strongly urged by my constituents.
To particularise, the letter contains no recognition of the clearly expressed wishes of the parents, yet Section 76 of the Education Act, 1944, states in specific terms that
the Minister and the local education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.

Mr. W. Yates: It is not only true of that, but it is a fundamental principle of Conservative policy on education.

Mr. More: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it emphasises the interest which we on this side of the House have always felt in that the wishes of those most concerned should be observed.
To particularise again, the letter makes no reference whatever to the social and and community needs of Craven Arms, yet it was most strongly urged by my constituents that a plain duty was laid on the Minister to take such things into account. The letter contains no recognition of the arguments urged by my constituents in connection with the Crowther Report, which, they claimed, in a thinly inhabited rural area, supported the concept of a small school.
To particularise again, the letter makes no attempt to come to grips with the

facts and figures produced by my constituents concerning the catchment area. The letter makes no mention of the allegations of lack of fairness and impartiality on the part of the chairman. It makes no reference to the practice of adjoining local authorities or to the grotesque situation which the Salop authority's proposals will produce. Perhaps I may enlarge briefly upon this aspect.
Ludlow is on the southern boundary of Shropshire and closely adjoins Worcestershire and Herefordshire. At Church Stretton, sixteen miles north of Ludlow, the Salop authority, as I have mentioned, has since publication of the Crowther Report provided a complete set of new buildings for a two-stream school. At Tenbury, ten miles east of Ludlow, the Worcestershire authority has, I am informed, since the Crowther Report, established a new two-stream school. At Wigmore, ten miles west of Ludlow, the Herefordshire authority has, I am informed, since the Crowther Report, established a new two-stream school. The logical sequence within this triangle would surely be to establish two similar schools at Ludlow and Craven Arms. Instead, Ludlow is to be made into a big school.
As I represent Ludlow also in this House, it is right that I should say that the Ludlow headmaster at least would welcome an enlargement. It is also right to say, however, that there has, to the best of my knowledge, been not one demand from the parents or the people of Ludlow that their school should be enlarged at the expense of Craven Arms.
It is necessary also that I refer to another matter put to the Ministry by my constituents, to which no reference was made in the letter. This is the accusation that the Stokesay school project was never considered by the education committee on its own intrinsic merits but merely in the context of the darling project of the secretary of the education authority for a secondary modern boarding school at Millichope, in Shropshire. It could be a matter for surprise that a poor county like Shropshire, still lacking funds to replace some of its "black list" schools, has been able to afford so comparative a luxury as a secondary modern boarding school.
It would be no waste of the time of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary if he would take a hard look at the educational priorities in the county, in which so much money has been spent on educational capital projects. A tardy intervention has recently been made by the finance committee of the county council, and this has produced, since the date of my hon. Friend's letter, a new and extraordinary development in the story of Stokesay school, for the finance committee, acting on instructions of the county council, concerned with the ever-rising scale of expenditure in the county, in particular on education, has proposed that a number of projects are to be deferred or postponed. Among them it named the enlargement of Ludlow school.
This brings me to my final request, which was the original request of my constituents, that a proper public inquiry should be held. The Ministry's letter, referring to this request, states that my hon. Friend is satisfied that the usual procedure for cases of this kind has yielded all the necessary facts and information, but whatever may be the Minister's usual procedure, there can be no doubt as to his powers under the Act. Section 93 expressly gives him power to order a local inquiry, and I submit that unquestionably this is a case in which this should be done. The action of the finance committee, if confirmed by the county council, appears to have removed any contention that this will delay the proposals.
The Minister in this case is not being asked to judge between the claims of two communities. He is being asked to judge between a community which, on the facts I have given, has, I claim, been outrageously treated, and an authority which is clinging to a decision on purely doctrinaire grounds. What is at stake now is the good name not only of the authority but also of my right hon. Friend the Minister. Confidence has been shaken, and it can only be restored by a full, official inquiry on the spot.
I do not necessarily wish to press my hon. Friend for an answer tonight. Salop County Council is to hold a further meeting on 28th July, when, doubtless, this matter will be considered, and after its decision is recorded it may be easier

for my hon. Friend to decide the right course to pursue.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: It is with pleasure that I have heard the representation made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), a neighbouring constituency to my own. It is not the first time this House has heard an Adjournment debate concerning education in Shropshire. Only a year ago I had reason to submit to the Parliamentary Secretary a request for consideration for a Catholic school in Wellington. On that occasion we were grateful for what the Minister did, and we do understand that he is deeply interested in our educational programmes in Shropshire.
A case has arisen here, in a neighbouring constituency, which warrants the intervention of the Minister in an inquiry, the case for which has been advanced by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I would not like myself to pass any judgment on that, one way or the other, but whatever happens, in view the fact that the chairman of Shropshire County Council did conduct this meeting to which reference has been made, where a vote was taken—or not taken—I would suggest that the Minister devote some of his time to giving very much closer consideration to our education and to our educational facilities in Shropshire, because I do not feel that the hon. Member for Ludlow would have raised this question tonight if he and his constituents had not seriously felt that this was a case which the Minister ought to consider, as I hope he will consider the problems of education in our county.

10.39 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I should like to say at once that I deeply appreciate the purpose of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) in raising this matter tonight. I should like to pay tribute to him for the care and zeal and persistence with which he has raised this matter with me and with officials of my Department in order to make quite sure himself that we were left in no doubt of the importance his constituents attached to this question. I think I can say, with some fairly long and quite considerable experience of this kind of matter, that


I know of no case of this type which has been so carefully considered, so fully documented, and so faithfully pursued as this particular case.
We have in my Department a very considerable file of documents dealing with the various arguments and considerations that have been advanced from one side or another in the case of the school proposed to serve this area. I will deal at the beginning with the point that my hon. Friend made—his final point—the question whether there should or not in these circumstances be a public inquiry of some kind into the details in order to establish for all time what are the precise facts in dispute.
I think that my hon. Friend knows—indeed, if he has read the letters which I have had the privilege to address to him he must know—the procedures followed in cases of this kind. Where it is proposed to establish a new school or to change the nature and character of an existing school, the 1944 Education Act requires that there shall be published in the area concerned a public notice drawing attention to the proposal and offering to those who may be disappointed with the proposal an opportunity to submit their observations upon it to my right hon. Friend.
This procedure has been followed in this case. When the notices were published the opportunity to enter objections was taken by a very large number of electors in the area. Their objections were sent to my right hon. Friend. In accordance with his duty, my right hon. Friend then directed these objections to the local authority for its observations in the normal course of events. The local authority is then required to comment upon those objections and to send its comments to the Minister for him to take into account in reaching his decision.
The procedure is then for my right hon. Friend to act in a quasi-judicial capacity, weighing upon the one hand the proposals of the authority, the objections offered to those proposals and the replies to the objections submitted by the proposing authority. In this case, all these procedures have been faithfully and carefully carried out. My right hon. Friend, faced with a request from my hon. Friend to hold a public inquiry, must then consider whether, whilst his

powers under the 1944 Act are such that he could hold such an inquiry, this would reveal some new information or fact or consideration which has not already been placed before him.
Quite clearly, if the objectors have done their duty properly and if the local authority has discharged its obligations properly, there can be nothing that is not already before my right hon. Friend when he comes to make his decision.

Mr. More: I think my hon. Friend must admit that, as regards the detailed statistics of the catchment area and of the education arrangements for the southern part of Shropshire in general, there must be further information which can and should be gone into.

Mr. Thompson: I was coming to the statistics on which these various considerations will arise, but I am bound to say to my hon. Friend that I very much doubt whether there is something which has been held back up to this stage while the whole development of the case has been gone through by those on one side of the argument or the other. If, indeed, they have withheld some secret information which they thought they could develop at a later stage, then in all the circumstances they have missed a valuable opportunity to further their cause.
My point is that, as far as a public inquiry is concerned, all the information is already in the possession of my right hon. Friend when he comes to make his decision, which, as I say, must be made in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Now I come to the reason which may have produced the situation about which my hon. Friend complains. It is true that in the original development plan for the area which he represents it was proposed that there should be erected a two-form entry secondary modern school. This was thought to balance the provision of two-form entry secondary modern schools in other parts of the south Shropshire area. That was 10 years ago.
But development, and ideas in education, as in other spheres, do not stand still. In recent years we have had the benefit of the advice of the Crowther Committee. There have been a variety of educational developments which have led leading educationists to the view


that the small secondary modern school is a less viable educational unit than one which is larger. This is not to say that all schools must be large ones or that small schools are no good; but it supports the view that if a school is larger it is probably able to do more for the child than one which is smaller. Therefore, an authority which has the opportunity to provide for its children in a larger school ought to take the opportunity to do so.
I know perfectly well that the parents in an area like Craven Arms will be disappointed if there is no local school just because the school is not local, but they would be quite wrong to regard their children as being educationally deprived as a result of that. In point of fact, although they may be loth and slow to recognise it, their children are undoubtedly better provided for educationally in a school which is larger. Why? The larger school has more staff with a wider range of specialities, skills and subjects. The school community in the larger school is by definition more numerous. There is a greater rub and friction between the personalities of the children, between the types of children

who will be there, between the sorts of background from which they come and their kinds of experience. From this comes the spark which enables the teacher to identify and bring on and develop the peculiar talents and qualities of the individual child.
All this is not to say that the smaller school is inefficient or incapable of offering a good education to a child. What it means is that the larger school, within reasonable limits, is able to give the child opportunities and advantages which the smaller school cannot give. The larger school has physical provision that the smaller school cannot have. All the tendency in education today is in this direction. I am sure that while the children of my hon. Friend's constituents may be deprived of some things in this process, as undoubtedly they will be, the close link—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.